MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386796145 · doi:10.1111/pan.14760

The role of <scp>WhatsApp™</scp> in pediatric difficult airway management: A study from the <scp>PeDI</scp> Collaborative

2023· article· en· W4386796145 on OpenAlexaff
Evelina Pankiv, Kira Achaibar, Alomgir Hossain, John E. Fiadjoe, Clyde Matava

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAirway managementIntubationFamily medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Management of the pediatric difficult airway can present unique clinical challenges. The Pediatric Difficult Intubation Collaborative (PeDI-C) is an international collaborative group engaging in quality improvement and research in children with difficult airways. The PeDI-C established a WhatsApp™ group to facilitate real-time discussions around the management of the difficult airway in pediatric patients. The goals of this study were to evaluate the patterns of use of the WhatsApp™ group, themes on messages posted on pediatric difficult airway management and to assess the perceived usefulness of the WhatsApp™ group by the PeDI-C members. METHOD: Following research ethics approval, we performed a database analysis on the archived discussion of the PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group from 2014 to 2019 and surveyed members to assess the perceived usefulness of the PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group. RESULTS: 5781 messages were reviewed with 350 (6.0%) original stems. The three most common original stem types were advice seeking 98 (28%), announcements 85 (24.2%), and clinical case-sharing 78 (22.2%). The median number of responses to original stems was 9 [2-21.3]. Post types associated with increased responses included those seeking advice on medication/equipment (regression coefficient 0.78, 95% CI [0.41-1.16]; p < .0001); seeking advice on patient care (regression coefficient 1.16, 95% CI [0.86-1.45]; p < .0001), sharing advice on medication/equipment availability (regression coefficient 0.87, 95% CI [0.33-1.40], p < .0016), and clinical case-sharing (regression coefficient 1.2547, 95% CI [0.9401-1.5693] p < .0001). 46/64 members of the group responded to the survey. Replies offering advice regarding patient management scenarios were found to be of most interest and 77% of surveyed members found the discussion translatable into their own clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The PeDI-C WhatsApp™ group has facilitated timely knowledge exchange on pediatric difficult airway management across the world. Participants are satisfied with the role the Whatsapp™ group is playing.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207