What is the feasibility of implementing effective sodium reduction strategies to treat hypertension in primary care settings? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether efficacious counseling methods on sodium restriction can be successfully incorporated into primary care models for the management of hypertension. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment to identify randomized controlled trials of dietary counseling for salt intake reduction that reported significant reduction in 24-h urinary sodium and blood pressure levels among adults with untreated hypertension. Data extraction and assessment of reproducibility and feasibility were done in duplicate and any disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Six trials were included for assessment of methods as they were efficacious in reducing sodium intake (24-h urinary sodium excretion) by 73 to 93 mmol/day (intervention) vs. 3.2 to 12.5 mmol/day (control). This was paralleled with a reduction in blood pressure (-4 to -27 mmHg) between groups. In four of the six trials, the methods were described in sufficient detail to be reproducible, but in none of these trials were the 'counseling methods' feasible for application in primary care settings. Apart from multiple sessions of counseling, the reported interventions were supplemented with provision of prepared food, community cooking classes, and intensive inpatient training sessions. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of efficacious counseling methods for the reduction of sodium intake among newly diagnosed hypertensive patients (feasible within a clinical trial setting), none of these methods, in their present form, are suitable for incorporation into existing primary care settings in countries such as Canada, United States, and UK.
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 | 0.040 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".