High prevalence and poor control of hypertension in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report: (1) on the background, design and methods of the Hypertension and Diabetes Risk Screening and Awareness (HYDRA) study, (2) on the point prevalence of hypertension in primary care and (3) on the proportion of treated, controlled, and uncontrolled hypertension. DESIGN: Cross-sectional point prevalence study. SETTING: Representative nationwide sample of 1912 primary care practices in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 45,125 unselected primary care attendees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of hypertension based on doctor's diagnosis, self-reported diagnosis, and blood pressure (BP) measurements. RESULTS: A total of 39% of all patients and 67% of patients aged 60 years or older, respectively, were diagnosed by their doctors as having hypertension. Eighty-four percent of diagnosed patients were on antihypertensive medication, 57% of which were rated by the physician as well controlled. When hypertension was defined as either current BP levels > or = 140/90 mmHg and/or current antihypertensive medication, the total point prevalence increased to 50%, while treatment and control rates (BP < 140/90 mmHg) dropped to 64 and 19%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extrapolation of these findings to the entire primary care patient population seen in the over 20 000 primary care practices in Germany suggests that on an average day, over 700,000 patients with elevated BP are seen by primary care physicians, but that only around 132,000 of these patients are well controlled. Thus, this study not only documents the enormous burden of hypertensive patients in the primary health system, but also highlights the alarming lack of BP control in the vast majority of hypertensive patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".