Defining the gaps in transitional care to adulthood for patients in paediatric surgical specialties: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transitioning patients from their paediatric centres to adulthood is an important subject for many of these patients living with different chronic pathologies. There are few studies that assess its effectiveness in paediatric surgical pathologies. The overall objective of this scoping review is to assess the extent of the literature describing transitional programmes dedicated to young patients living with surgical conditions. The primary question will look to assess what transitional programmes are available for young patients living with surgical conditions either operated or not. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: in 2020. This protocol will employ the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. The concept that will be included in this review is the exposure of these patients to a transition of care pathway or care programmes. Patients between the ages of 16 and 30 with a surgical condition will be included. There will be no comparator. No specific outcomes will be assessed, however, the outcomes that will be found from the transition programmes will be reviewed. A knowledge synthesis librarian will search MEDLINE All (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) and CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost). The literature search will be limited to 2000 onwards publications. No language or age group limitation will be applied. The reference list of all included sources of evidence will be screened for additional studies. Screening of search results and data extraction from included studies will be completed in Covidence by two independent reviewers. We will also use the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations) framework to report and summarise the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, conference presentation, co-constructed guidelines with stakeholders and policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review is registered on OSF.
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 | 0.119 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.019 |
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".