MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398202563 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2023-107552

Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4398202563 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Blazey, Alex Scott, Clare L. Ardern, Jennifer C. Davis, Jackie L. Whittaker, Justin M. Losciale, Karim M. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINECINAHLConsensus conferenceMedicineEvidence-based medicineRigourAlternative medicinePsychological interventionNursingPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. RESULTS: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.

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)0.574
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.834
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5740.834
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.011
Bibliometrics0.0390.040
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0300.037
Open science0.0110.015
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207