Review: self monitoring interventions modestly reduce diastolic blood pressure (BP) but do not improve BP control in hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fahey T, Schroeder K, Ebrahim S. Interventions used to improve control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(1):CD005182. Q How effective are various models of care for improving blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension? ### ![Graphic][1]</img>Data sources: Medline and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (2000 to November 2002), Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2002); hand searches of references of retrieved articles; and experts. ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that included patients ⩾18 years of age with primary hypertension (treated or not currently treated with BP lowering drugs) in a primary care, outpatient, or community setting; and compared self monitoring, patient education, physician education, health professional (nurse or pharmacist) led care, protocol driven care (organisational interventions to improve delivery of care), or appointment reminders with no intervention or usual care. Study quality was assessed … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [2]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".