MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064056330

Adherence to clinical practice guidelines
\nfor using invasive coronary angiography in chronic coronary artery disease

2024· dissertation· en· W7064056330 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Plasma Interactions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGemeinsame BundesausschussCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsGuidelineCoronary artery diseaseClinical PracticeObservational studyHealth careMEDLINEPercutaneous coronary interventionClinical trial
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are proposed as a strategy to reduce practice variation and aim to support the application of evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice. Guideline adherence is understood as the application of CPG in the clinical practice. This cumulative dissertation evaluates the guideline adherence in routine care based on the example of the decision-making process for using invasive coronary angiography (CA) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) in Germany. For this purpose, four dissertation projects (DP) are conducted.
\n
\nDP 1 identifies methods to assess the guideline adherence of health care providers in the care of chronic CA by a scoping review. In DP 2 a prospective observational study (ENLIGHT-KHK) generates evidence on the guideline adherence in patients undergoing a decision-making process for receiving a CA to confirm or exclude an obstructive SCAD. DP 3 conducts a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the ENLIGHT-KHK-trial. The analysis examines the degree of guideline adherence and the corresponding clinical and economic outcomes. Major adverse cardiac events and costs of the complete guideline-adherent use (according to the German National Disease Management Guideline) are compared with those of in the clinical practice observed real-world CA-use. DP 4 examines the degree of guideline adherence according to the German and the European CPG using ENLIGHT-KHK data in patients who were referred to elective CA.
\n
\nDP 1 identifies similarities and differences in the methods used for assessing guideline adherence. Main steps of assessing guideline adherence were detected, and retrospectively collected secondary data were mostly used as a data source. Differences were detected in the definition of guideline adherence, the evidence underlying the CPG-recommendations, the evaluation and results of guideline adherence. DP 3 shows that in clinical practice ca. 26% of CAs were performed according to the German CPG-recommendations. To improve guideline adherence, a reduction of the amount of CAs in patients with SCAD would be necessary. A guideline-adherent CA-use is less expensive and associated with a slightly lower MACE compared with the observed adherence to CPGs by CA-use in clinical practice for the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI). In patients referred to CA (DP 4), guideline adherence is 25.4% according to German and 20.4% according to the European CPG.
\n
\nThe findings of this dissertation indicate that the adherence to CPG is suboptimal in the clinical practice of CA-use in patients susceptive of chronic CAD in Germany for both the German and the European CPG. From the health economic perspective, improving adherence to CPG by (i) reducing the amount of CAs and ii) strengthening the role of non-invasive image guided testing modalities would result in cost savings and slightly lower MACE for the German SHI.
\n
\nTo improve guideline adherence, implementation by intersectoral strategies consisting of various components might be promising. Especially, these could affect structural barriers and facilitators when translating evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.007
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.296 · 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