MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394869976 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2024.03.007

Guideline Recommendations on Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4394869976 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer Watt, J. M. Porter, Pattara Tavilsup, Mohammad Chowdhury, Stacey Hatch, Zahinoor Ismail, Sanjeev Kumar, Julia Kirkham, Zahra Goodarzi, Dallas Seitz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsDementiaMedicineGuidelineContext (archaeology)MEDLINEPsychiatryPathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize recommendations on assessing and managing behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSDs) in existing clinical practice guidelines on dementia care to learn from and adapt recommendations to a Canadian context and language for describing BPSDs. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Moderate to high-quality clinical practice guidelines on dementia care that made 1 or more recommendations on BPSD assessment or management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, JBI EBM, PsycINFO, AgeLine, and gray literature for clinical practice guidelines on dementia care making recommendations on BPSD, published between January 1, 2011, and October 13, 2022. Two independent reviewers conducted study screening and data abstraction. Four independent reviewers completed quality appraisal using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool; included guidelines had a mean overall AGREE II score ≥4. RESULTS: Our systematic review identified 23 moderate to high-quality clinical practice guidelines (264 recommendations). The mean overall quality score on the AGREE II tool ranged from 4 to 6.5. Recommendations were clearly presented (mean clarity of presentation score 73.5%), but guideline applicability was not consistently addressed (mean applicability score 39.3%). BPSD was the most prevalent term describing neuropsychiatric symptoms (number of guidelines [n] = 14). People with lived experience contributed to 6 guidelines (26.1%). Ten guidelines (43.5%) described 1 or more health equity considerations. Guidelines made recommendations for assessing and managing agitation (n = 12), aggression (n = 10), psychosis (n = 11), depression (n = 9), anxiety (n = 5), apathy (n = 6), inappropriate sexual behavior (n = 3), nighttime behavior (n = 5), and eating disturbances (n = 3). There was substantial variability in recommendation statements, evidence quality assigned to each statement, and strength of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There are several moderate to high-quality clinical practice guidelines making recommendations on BPSD assessment and management, but variability in recommendation statements across guidelines and insufficient consideration of guideline applicability may hamper guideline dissemination and implementation in clinical practice.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations53
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207