Authorea

Denna Wheeler edited Coding_Coding_the_process_by__.html about 8 years ago

Commit id: a44fc4f291524d31b6accea50e50387ef8b3a754

deletions | additions

Coding:

Coding,

Methodology

We searched the process by which the published papers PubMed database for clinical trials associated with treatments for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in our sample were read, reviewed, and documented, was done by C.C.W., W.D.B., J. W., pediatric patients published between 2005 and T.E.N. Articles used 2015. The full search strategy is described in Appendix 1. Over 1000 studies were identified based on the result of a PubMed initial search over the past 10 years. At the onset, 1086 potentially relevant papers were assembled. Covidence.org was used as a means of screening criteria. These study abstracts (N=1086) were subsequently screened by CCW WDB, JW, and titles to remove papers that TEN for inclusion based on the following inclusion exclusion criteria (INSERT INFORMATION HERE RELATED TO SCREENING CRITERIA including this sentence -Studies combining original research with meta-analysis werenot useful. Each article required two separate ‘yes’ votes to be included in our study, and two separate ‘no’ votes so as to be excluded. not exclude original research.). Disputes over inclusion were resolved via group discussion. consensus. Initial screening resulted in 885 articles were included in our study retained for further review. A random sample ofwhich 285 were randomly sampled and divided evenly four ways. After studies was selected for full text screening, 182 articles coding. Additional studies were included. Animal excluded during this process (e.g., animal studies, genome-wide association studies,follow-up studies of adult survivors of pediatric ALL,exclusively genetic studies, and genome-wide association studies were excluded. genetic studies). Meta-analyses were excluded to avoid redundancy, as we had already coded their redundancy since the primary constituent studiesindividually. Studies combining original research with meta-analysis were included so as to not exclude original research. included. The remaining 182 articles were retained for coding. (See Prisma Diagram).

An Diagram).

An abstraction manual was formulated by D.H. to standardize the coding process. Each person was partnered with another so that all of the coding process was reviewed once over. The papers were analyzed for nine specific pieces of information: outcome, measurement device, method of aggregation, primacy of outcome, whether the outcome was a harm or side effect of an intervention, study design, study type, metric, & sample size. With regards to metric, when an outcome element was implicitly specified, we considered it specified. For example, because quantifying survival is, by definition, measuring time to event, specific metric for survival analysis outcomes was always coded as time to event. For survival, remission, and relapse, measurement device was coded as “N/A” because, other than a calendar, there is no measurement device. For outcomes reported using scales (e.g., NCI-CTC), metric was coded as "value at a time point" unless otherwise specified within the body of the article. When coding sample size for studies including non-pediatric-ALL research, all study participants were counted, including adult patients and pediatric patients with a cancer other than ALL. For the final step in coding, outcomes were grouped into eight domains for analysis: 1) Survival; 2) Mortality; 3) Remission; 4) Relapse; 5) Response to Treatment; 6) Adverse Event; 7) Cognitive Event; 8) Other.

Analysis:

STATA

Analysis:

STATA software was used to analyze frequency of appearance of unique outcomes and the specification of the nine outcome elements outlined in the abstraction manual. Unique outcomes were then placed in the eight broad domains listed above and run through STATA to reveal larger trends in reporting.
In reporting.

In order to structure a visual representation and calculate centrality of clinical outcomes in pediatric leukemia, a matrix was constructed. The foundation of this social network was formed using a basis of frequency of connections across outcomes, termed co-occurrences. Each outcome and the number of times it co-occurred with other specific outcomes were recorded in a spreadsheet. Reviewers C.C.W. and W.D.B. produced the network structure with a symmetrically duplicated matrix, ultimately serving to verify the co-occurrences.
We co-occurrences.

We imported the network matrix onto UCINET and used Netdraw software. Each outcome was uploaded onto the program in the order of total co-occurrences. Thus, each outcome was sized in increasingly larger nodes, the plots of FIGURE **; the larger the size of the node, then the larger number of total co-occurrences this outcome maintains across outcomes in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Next, the spring embedding function was applied to group outcomes around the largest nodes. This was accomplished by grouping less connected outcomes around nodes in a pattern of descending number of co-occurrences until the network became too dense for coherency. Next, a superstructure was formed, according to FIGURE **, which represents the social network architecture of outcomes.