MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6999693909

Development, implementation and evaluation of evidence-based treatment guidelines for herpes simplex keratitis

2019· dissertation· en· W6999693909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSydney Eye Hospital Foundation
KeywordsContext (archaeology)GuidelineFeature (linguistics)LimitingPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is one the major causes of unilateral blindness in the developed world. Evidence-based recommendations for HSK had not been properly translated into practice. The overall aim of this thesis was to develop, implement, and evaluate a local HSK treatment guideline at the Sydney Eye Hospital. Methods The Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO) Toolkit: ‘Implementation of Best Practice Guidelines’ was utilised to develop, implement, and evaluate the guideline at the Hospital. A retrospective review was conducted to determine the knowledge gap. All HSK patients prescribed with antivirals, aged 18 years and above, from 2012 to 2013 were included. To assess the response to the guideline, an audit of all HSK patients aged 18 and over presenting during 6-months post-guideline implementation was conducted. A web-based survey assessed clinician awareness, usage and level of knowledge of the guideline. Patients were identified from viral swab results, pharmacy records, and hospital coding data. Results 296 patients were included in the retrospective review and 85 patients in the audit. The dose of prescribed antiviral medications was in alignment with the local guideline in 80% (51/64) of patients compared to 73% prior to implementation (p = 0.331). Post-implementation alignment was found in 72% (26/36) of patients with epithelial HSK vs 89% prior to implementation (124/139), p = 0.009. With SHSK-U, 33% (1/3) vs 9% (2/22), p = 0.3. With endothelial HSK, 67% (2/3) vs 33% (6/18), p = 0.5. With HSK prophylaxis, 100% (22/22) on prophylaxis vs 70% (31/44), p = 0.003. The web-based survey was sent to 95 clinicians, 41 (43%) responded. Of these, 35 (85%) were aware of the guidelines, 31 (75%) accessed them through the hardcopy and electronic versions available. Conclusions Most clinicians were aware of and adhered to the implemented local HSK treatment guideline. The guideline aided clinicians, mainly trainees, in prescribing antivirals for HSK according to the evidence to improve clinical outcomes.

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)0.185
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.350
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1850.350
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.012 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney)Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207