The validity of blood pressure kiosk validation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Public-use blood pressure (BP) kiosks are commonly used, and yet their accuracy has been questioned on the basis of the results of the published validation studies. However, the adherence of these studies to established validation standards has not been studied. We carried out a systematic review of the published peer-reviewed literature on the validity of public-use BP kiosks to assess their adherence to validation standards. METHODS: With medical librarian assistance, the literature was searched systematically for studies claiming to validate kiosks up to June 2012. Studies were limited to English articles that studied adult patients and were excluded if they were carried out solely on pregnant women. Two authors independently compared the study methods with those recommended in the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, British Hypertension Society and the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol validation standards. RESULTS: Nine studies were identified, of which only one came close to adhering to selected validation standard criteria, and found the device to be accurate. One study found device accuracy with poor adherence to standards, whereas the remaining seven found device inaccuracy with poor adherence to standards, therefore potentially reporting false conclusions. CONCLUSION: The majority of the reviewed studies validating public-use BP kiosks did not adhere to existing validation standards and therefore may have reported false conclusions. The one study that came close to following the validation standards found the device tested to be accurate. Readers must critically appraise the quality of validation studies published on these devices before interpreting their accuracy, and future studies should better adhere to existing validation standards to reduce the risk of reporting potentially false conclusions.
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 | 0.545 | 0.831 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".