MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

S495 Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Barrett’s Esophagus: A Systematic Critical Appraisal Using the AGREE II Tool

2023· article· en· W4387750044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denisse Camille Dayto, Andrew Sephien, Tea Reljic, Samuel Slone, Ambuj Kumar, Wojciech Błoński

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineCritical appraisalFamily medicineMedical physicsAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There have been multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) addressing screening, diagnosis and treatment and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The most recent critical appraisal of CPGs between 2005 and 2013 was done by Feuerstein et al in 2016. However, since then, the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) have published updates on guideline recommendations for BE in 2019 and 2022, respectively. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to assess the methodological quality of CPGs in the management of BE over the past 7 years. Methods: A comprehensive search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted to identify eligible CPGs from inception until February 10, 2023 which describe the management of BE. Due to being the most sensitive filter, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies broad filter was utilized. The quality of the CPGs was independently assessed and evaluated by 2 reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, with domain scores showing good quality being >80% and of sufficient quality when >60%. Results: The search yielded 585 citations of which, 5 were CPGs included for this appraisal. Three of the CPGs were published by gastroenterology groups in the United States and 2 in Europe. The overall median score for the AGREE II domain was 93% for scope and purpose, 79% for stakeholder involvement, 82% for rigor of development, 93%% for clarity of presentation, 79% for applicability, 82% for editorial independence and 78% for overall assessment. Conclusion: The findings from our study show that there is overall variability in the methodological quality of the CPGs for the management of BE varies across different domains. The application of the AGREE II tool can help CPG developers in improving the methodological rigor and applicability of CPGs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.344
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.678
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3440.678
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.015
Bibliometrics0.0310.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→