MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557491182

[Web-based interventions targeting cardiovascular risk factors in older people; a systematic review and meta-analysis].

2018· review· en· W2557491182 on OpenAlexaff
Cathrien Beishuizen, Willem A. van Gool, Wim B. Busschers, Ron J.G. Peters, Eric P. Moll van Charante, Edo Richard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsJMIR Publications
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCINAHLCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisInternal medicinePsychological interventionIncidence (geometry)Physical therapyMEDLINE
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether web-based interventions for cardiovascular risk factor management reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were systematically searched from January 1995 to 3 November 2014. We included all randomised controlled trials for web-based interventions targeting cardiovascular risk factors in populations with a mean age of 50 and older. The outcome measures were cardiovascular risk factors (blood pressure, HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, weight, smoking status and physical activity) and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. We used random-effects models to pool the results of the studies. RESULTS: A total of 57 studies (19,862 participants) fulfilled eligibility criteria, and 47 of these were suitable for meta-analysis. We found a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (-2.66 mmHg, 95% CI -3.81 to -1.52), diastolic blood pressure (-1.26 mmHg, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.60), HbA1c level (-0.13%, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.05), LDL cholesterol level (-0.06 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01), weight (-1.34 kg, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.77), and an increase in physical activity (standardized mean difference 0.25, 95% CI 0.10-0.39) in the intervention group when compared with the control group. Treatment effects were more pronounced in studies of short duration (< 12 months) and when combining the web-based intervention with human support by a health care professional. No difference in the incidence of cardiovascular disease was found between groups. CONCLUSION: Web-based interventions have a beneficial effect on the cardiovascular risk profile, but this effect is modest and declines with time. Currently, there is insufficient evidence that this can prevent cardiovascular disease. A focus on long-term effects, effect-sustainability and clinical endpoints is recommended for future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.032
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207