MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948202135 · doi:10.1177/1715163519839675

Pharmacists to improve hypertension management: Guideline concordance from North America to Europe

2019· review· en· W2948202135 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniela Anker, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Gilles Paradis, Arnaud Chioléro, Valérie Santschi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceGuidelineMedicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension is highly prevalent but remains poorly controlled in Canada, the United States and European countries.1-4 Reasons include clinical inertia, patients’ limited access to health care, lack of awareness or underestimation of the importance of lifestyle factors and nonadherence to blood pressure (BP)–lowering medication.1 Challenges exist at every level of hypertension management, and accordingly, solutions for improving hypertension control rates should be multilevel. One innovative solution for improving hypertension care is shared care through teambased care (TBC). TBC is a coordinated model of shared care involving different health care professionals, such as physicians, pharmacists, nurses or other health care professionals, working in collaborative partnership, each with their own expertise.5 An important member of the team is the pharmacist, who is a valuable asset to improve hypertension management given his or her accessibility and drug therapy xpertise.6 Several meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown significant reductions in BP when pharmacists were involved compared to usual care.7-9 In addition, pharmacist-led interventions appear to be cost-effective. Indeed, Marra et al.10 showed a net cost savings of $CDN 15.7 billion if only 50% of Canadians had their hypertension care provided by a prescribing pharmacist, compared to usual care.11,12 Recent guidelines on hypertension management, notably the 2017 guidelines from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), recommend TBC for the first time.13 Moreover, the ACC/AHA recommendations are in line with recent commendations of Hypertension Canada and the European Society of Hypertension.14,15 In this brief review, we discuss the recommendations for TBC for hypertension management in recent American, Canadian and European guidelines and pinpoint roles and responsibilities that fall within the scope of care provided by a pharmacist.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207