STRIDE BP international initiative for accurate blood pressure measurement: Systematic review of published validation studies of blood pressure measuring devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood pressure (BP) is a vital sign, and its measurement is essential for diagnosing and treating hypertension. The accuracy of BP monitors is therefore essential, but unfortunately very few devices available on the market have been validated using an established protocol. STRIDE BP (www.stridebp.org) is an international nonprofit organization with the mission to improve the accuracy of BP measurement and the diagnosis of hypertension. It has a prestigious Scientific Advisory Board and operates in affiliation with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League. STRIDE BP provides lists of accurate office, ambulatory, and home BP monitors. STRIDE BP performed a systematic review of 419 published validations (270 articles and 260 devices). In these publications, 50 (12%) of the validations were rejected compared with 129 (31%) rejected by STRIDE BP (P < .001). Of 79 validations approved in publications but rejected by STRIDE BP, 7 (9%) were rejected due to device inaccuracy and 72 (91%) due to inadequate study quality (execution, analysis, and reporting). Errors in conducting and reporting published validations must be avoided. Peer review must ascertain that a comprehensive checklist of all aspects of a validation study have been adhered to. The implementation of a Universal Standard for device validation and the global dissemination of information on accurate devices by STRIDE BP are expected to improve the quality and accuracy of BP measurement, which should have a positive impact on the diagnosis and management of hypertension globally.
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 | 0.069 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".