MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417300166 · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113997

Reporting GUideline for Intervention DEscription in Rehabilitation (GUIDE-Rehab): a tool to open the ‘black box’ of rehabilitation complex interventions

2025· article· en· W4417300166 on OpenAlexaff
Stefano Négrini, Chiara Arienti, Susan Armijo‐Olivo, Pierre Côté, Allen W. Heinemann, Carlotte Kiekens, Dinesh Kumbhare, William Levack, Thorsten Meyer-Feil, John Whyte

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationPsychological interventionDelphi methodIntervention (counseling)GuidelineTransparency (behavior)Quality (philosophy)Rehabilitation counseling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2023, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to strengthen rehabilitation within health systems, calling for rehabilitation research. Within health, the term rehabilitation has multiple meanings, including a core strategy, a sector, a service and an intervention. The latter has been defined as complex and characterised as a 'black box', similar to complex interventions in other fields. The existing reporting guidelines are not sufficiently effective in describing interventions within the rehabilitation field. We developed the GUideline for Intervention DEscription in Rehabilitation (GUIDE-Rehab) to address these challenges.According to the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network, we followed a Delphi process with multiple Consensus Meetings and piloting and used ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document for reporting. The background research involved 21 papers. We based GUIDE-Rehab on the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System, developed over 15 years of research to improve rehabilitation description; the definition of rehabilitation for research purposes; and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication reporting guideline. 68 representatives from global rehabilitation stakeholders (scientific societies, journals, evidence and methods groups), including individuals with lived experience of disability, from 26 countries across all continents and economies, participated. The piloting involved 17 chief editors, 7 research groups and participants from 10 scientific meetings.The complete version comprises 16 items, while the version for uncontrolled studies includes 13. The short version (10 items for text, 6 for appendix) helps reduce the manuscripts' length. The GUIDE-Rehab graphical illustration (nine items) facilitates the intervention description. GUIDE-Rehab will assist in the reporting of interventions in rehabilitation to enhance clinical research and support clinical implementation.

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)0.293
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.423
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.872

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2930.423
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0080.009
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.015

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ evidence-based medicineSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207