MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386712334 · doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13757.1

Investigating how the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework is used in Clinical Guidelines: a scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4386712334 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa K. Sharp, Adriana Razidan, Ben Hibbitts, Máirín Ryan, Kamal R Mahtani, Rosarie Lynch, Susan M. Smith, Michelle O’Neill, Holger J. Schünemann, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Zachary Munn, Barbara Clyne

Bibliographic record

VenueHRB Open Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersRoyal College of Surgeons in IrelandHealth Research Board
KeywordsGrey literatureGrading (engineering)Systematic reviewProtocol (science)MEDLINEData scienceComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringAlternative medicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Introduction:</ns3:bold> The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework provides a structured and transparent approach for clinical guideline developers to use when formulating recommendations. Understanding how stakeholders use the EtD framework will inform how best to provide future training and support. This scoping review objective is to identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is used and identify studies on perception of use by those involved in developing clinical guidelines. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. This scoping review will consider both peer review published literature and grey literature. This will include empirical studies on the use of EtDs (including both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods primary research articles) and discussion papers/ commentaries on the experience of using the EtD. It will also include a random sample of publicly available populated EtDs identified from databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents. First, we will conduct an exploratory search of MEDLINE and Embase (Elsevier), supplemented with citation analysis of included articles. Populated EtDs will be identified through searches of databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. Two researchers will independently screen, select, and extract identified documents. Data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusion:</ns3:bold> This scoping review will identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is currently being used in clinical guidelines. Review findings can be used to inform future guidance and requirements for using GRADE EtD, as well as training on how to consider the criteria in developing recommendations. Results will be disseminated through publications in peer – reviewed journals and conference presentations. We will present our findings to relevant stakeholders via the networks of the co-author team at a one-day workshop. </ns3:p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.372
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.459
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3720.459
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.979
GPT teacher head0.781
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHRB Open ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207