Adherence tool for prophylactic haemophilia treatment in adult and adolescent patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemophilia is a congenital bleeding disorder resulting from a low level or deficiency of clotting factors. It is an x-linked recessive disease and happens almost exclusively in males whereas females are the carrier of the affected gene. The most common types of hemophilia are hemophilia A and Hemophilia B. Hemophilia is classified into mild, moderate and severe. Prophylaxis treatment has more advantages clinically compare to on-demand therapy. It may reduce the bleeding frequency, gives protection from joint damage, may lower the number of total bleeding episodes per year, and may reduce annualised spontaneous and trauma related bleeding events. However, prophylaxis treatment needs regular weekly infusions therefore it is painful to administer especially if the vein is difficult to access. It may cause pain at the site of injections and may lead to non-adherence to treatment. Non-adherence to a regimen will result in insufficient clotting factor levels in the body. The efficacy of the medication is reduced and may lead to a high bleeding tendency. Thus far, the study on adult haemophilic patient adherence tool is scarce and limited; and therefore this review is warranted. The study protocol is conducted as per the PRISMA-P guideline. There are 4 concepts in this systematic review which are Haemophilia, adult and adolescence, preventive treatment and adherence. Articles will be sought from electronic databases PUBMED, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS using the MeSH term, synonym free-text word, truncation, and proximity operators as per each database. The proposed keywords within each concept will be joined using the Boolean operator "OR "and the 4 different concepts combined using the Boolean operator "AND". Search will be limited to Human, English language, and publication until 2022. Studies will be included if they meet the study inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) for observation-based studies. This systematic review does not require formal ethical approval as data will be extracted from selected published studies. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and relevant conference presentations.(PROSPERO registration CRD42021273813).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".