Treatment and blood pressure control in Spain during 2002–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the evolution of hypertension management and blood pressure (BP) control in Spain in the last decade across PRESCAP 2002, 2006 and 2010. METHODS: The methodology of the three studies was the same. They were multicenter and cross-sectional surveys aimed to determine BP control rates in hypertensive patients in primary care in Spain during 2002, 2006 and 2010, respectively. In each study, patients at least 18 years, with an established diagnosis of hypertension were included. Adequate BP control was defined as BP less than 140/90 mmHg in the general population (<130/85 mmHg in PRESCAP 2002 and less than 130/80 mmHg in PRESCAP 2006 and PRESCAP 2010 for patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease). RESULTS: A total of 12,754 patients (mean age 63.3 ± 10.8 years; 57.2% women), 10,520 patients (64.6 ± 11.3 years; 53.7% women) and 12,961 patients (66.3 ± 11.4; 52.0% women) were included in PRESCAP 2002, PRESCAP 2006 and PRESCAP 2010 studies respectively. With regard to BP control rates, 36.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.2-36.9%], 41.4% (95% CI 40.5-42.4%) and 46.3% of patients (95% CI 45.4-47.1%) achieved BP goals in PRESCAP 2002, PRESCAP 2006 and PRESCAP 2010, respectively (P < 0.0001). In PRESCAP 2002, 56% of patients were on monotherapy, 35.6% were taking two drugs and 8.4% at least three drugs. In PRESCAP 2006 these numbers were 44.4, 41.1 and 14.5%, respectively, and in PRESCAP 2010 they were 36.4, 44.1 and 19.5%, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: BP control rates have improved in Spain from 2002 to 2010. This may be related, at least in part, with the higher use of antihypertensive treatment, particularly combined therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".