MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prioritization of Randomized Clinical Trial Questions for Children Hospitalized With Common Conditions

2024· article· en· W4396938746 on OpenAlexaff
Eric R. Coon, Corrie E. McDaniel, Natalia Paciorkowski, Meg Grimshaw, Elizabeth Frakes, Lilliam Ambroggio, Katherine A. Auger, Eyal Cohen, Matthew Garber, Peter J. Gill, Rebecca Jennings, Neha S. Joshi, JoAnna K. Leyenaar, Russell J. McCulloh, Matthew S. Pantell, Hadley S. Sauers‐Ford, Alan R. Schroeder, Rajendu Srivastava, Marie E. Wang, Karen M. Wilson, Sunitha V. Kaiser, Alex R. Kemper, Anna Heath, H. Barrett Fromme, Brittany Jennings, Caitlin E Wainscott, Christopher J. Russell, Charles E. McCulloch, Clota H Snow, Francisco Álvarez, Jack M. Percelay, Karee S Nicholson, Kayce M Morton, Magna Dias, Rachel Marek, Roger Wilcox, Sadie A Hyde, Sanjay Mahant, Yeelen Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicinePopulationDelphi methodFamily medicineMEDLINEEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: There is a lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data to guide many routine decisions in the care of children hospitalized for common conditions. A first step in addressing the shortage of RCTs for this population is to identify the most pressing RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. Objective: To identify the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this consensus statement, a 3-stage modified Delphi process was used in a virtual conference series spanning January 1 to September 29, 2022. Forty-six individuals from 30 different institutions participated in the process. Stage 1 involved construction of RCT questions for the 10 most common pediatric conditions leading to hospitalization. Participants used condition-specific guidelines and reviews from a structured literature search to inform their development of RCT questions. During stage 2, RCT questions were refined and scored according to importance. Stage 3 incorporated public comment and feasibility with the prioritization of RCT questions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was RCT questions framed in a PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcome) format and ranked according to importance and feasibility; score choices ranged from 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater importance and feasibility. Results: Forty-six individuals (38 who shared demographic data; 24 women [63%]) from 30 different institutions participated in our modified Delphi process. Participants included children's hospital (n = 14) and community hospital (n = 13) pediatricians, parents of hospitalized children (n = 4), other clinicians (n = 2), biostatisticians (n = 2), and other researchers (n = 11). The process yielded 62 unique RCT questions, most of which are pragmatic, comparing interventions in widespread use for which definitive effectiveness data are lacking. Overall scores for importance and feasibility of the RCT questions ranged from 1 to 9, with a median of 5 (IQR, 4-7). Six of the top 10 selected questions focused on determining optimal antibiotic regimens for 3 common infections (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and cellulitis). Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statementhas identified the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. This list of RCT questions can guide investigators and funders in conducting impactful trials to improve care and outcomes for hospitalized children.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.663
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207