A primary care pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the use of home blood pressure monitoring on blood pressure levels in hypertensive patients with above target blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The measurement of blood pressure (BP) at home by patients with hypertension is increasingly used to assess and monitor BP. Evidence for its effectiveness in improving BP control is mixed. METHODS: To determine if home BP monitoring improves BP a pragmatic cluster randomized contolled trial was carried out in family practices in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Family practice patients with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited to the trail. Patients were divided into two groups: one with at least weekly measurements of BP at home, recording those measurements and showing those to the family physician during office visits for hypertension and the control group were given usual care. The primary outcome was mean awake BP on ambulatory monitoring at 6- and 12-month follow-up and the secondary outcomes were mean BP on full 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), mean sleep BP on ABPM and BP on the BpTRU device, all at 6- and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Home BP monitoring did not improve BP compared to usual care at 12-month follow-up: mean awake systolic BP on ABPM [141.1 versus 142.8 mmHg, mean difference 1.7 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.6 to 4.0, P = 0.314] and mean awake diastolic BP on ABPM (78.7 versus 79.4 mmHg, mean difference 0.7 mmHg; 95% CI -7.7 to 9.1, P = 0.398). Similar negative results were obtained for men and women separately. However, outcomes using the full 24-hour ABPM and the BpTRU device showed a significantly lower diastolic BP at 12 months. When analysis was done by sex, this effect was shown to be only in men. CONCLUSION: Home BP monitoring may improve BP control in men with hypertension.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; 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".