MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403691862 · doi:10.1186/s13023-024-03364-x

Review of clinical trials and guidelines for children and youth with mucopolysaccharidosis: outcome selection and measurement

2024· review· en· W4403691862 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison H. Howie, Kylie Tingley, Michal Inbar‐Feigenberg, John J. Mitchell, Kim Angel, Jenifer Gentle, Maureen Smith, Martin Offringa, Nancy J. Butcher, Philippe M. Campeau, Pranesh Chakraborty, Alicia Chan, Dean Fergusson, Eva Mamak, Peyton McClelland, Saadet Mercimek‐Andrews, Aizeddin Mhanni, Zeinab Moazin, Cheryl R. Greenberg, C. Anthony Rupar, Becky Skidmore, Sylvia Stöckler, Kednapa Thavorn, Alexandra Wyatt, Beth K. Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLysosomal Storage Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalWestern UniversityUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité de MontréalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health CentreCanadian MPS Society for Mucopolysaccharide and Related DiseasesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids Foundation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialPopulationMEDLINEAdverse effectIntensive care medicineDiseasePediatricsFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of a core outcome set (COS) for children and youth with mucopolysaccharidoses (MPS), we aimed to identify all outcomes and associated outcome measurement instruments that are reported in recent clinical trials and recommended as measurements in clinical management guidelines. METHODS: To identify English-language clinical trials and guidelines pertaining to MPS published between 2011 and mid-2021, we applied a comprehensive peer-reviewed search strategy to relevant databases and registers on May 16, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened retrieved citations and then full-text articles to determine eligibility for inclusion. From articles meeting inclusion criteria, we extracted details of the study design, population, intervention, and comparator, along with verbatim outcomes and associated outcome measurement instruments. Outcomes were organized into domains within five a priori core areas: life impact, pathophysiological manifestations, growth and development, resource use, and death. We conducted descriptive analyses at the study level, grouping articles arising from the same study. RESULTS: From 2593 unique citations, 73 articles from 61 unique studies were included in the review, pertaining to all MPS subtypes except for exceptionally rare subtypes. Eighty-four unique outcomes were reported across the studies, 33 (39%) of which were reported by three or fewer studies. Most outcomes (55; 65%) were in the pathophysiological manifestations core area, followed by life impact (17; 20%) and growth and development (10; 12%); one outcome each pertained to resource use and death. The most frequently reported outcomes were general adverse events (45; 74%), immune-related adverse events (39; 64%), and urinary glycosaminoglycans (38; 62%). Substantial variability existed in the reporting of outcome measurement instruments. Some differences in outcome reporting were observed by MPS subtype and publication year. DISCUSSION: Outcomes reported in clinical trials and guidelines for MPS in children and youth vary considerably and largely focus on pathophysiological manifestations. A COS is needed to standardize the selection and measurement of meaningful outcomes across future studies. We will present the outcomes identified in this review to knowledge users as part of a consensus process to select the most critical outcomes for inclusion in the COS. Trial Registration The protocol for this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021267531) and in the COMET Database.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.164 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrphanet Journal of Rare DiseasesSame topicLysosomal Storage Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207