Screening for hypertension in adults during emergency department consultation: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large proportion of patients affected with hypertension go undetected. A systematic review was conducted to assess the performance of a screening strategy in adults using blood pressure measurement at the time of an emergency department consultation. A systematic literature search on Embase, CINHAL and Medline was carried out. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Intervention studies with adults including at least one blood pressure measurement for all participants were included. A repeat blood pressure assessment had to have been carried out to assess the validity of the elevated blood pressure value within the next few days after the emergency department initial visit. Out of 1030 articles identified, published between 1985 and 2018, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria. There were no randomized clinical trials. Mean age of participants was 51.6 years. A single study reports that blood pressure screening was measured according to hypertension guidelines referred to in the study. The average follow-up rate was 61.9% (95% confidence interval 45.5-78.3). For diagnostic confirmation, four studies used a blood pressure measurement method based on the reported guidelines. Half of the patients (50.2%) with elevated blood pressure during the emergency department visit had blood pressure corresponding to uncontrolled elevated blood pressure at follow-up measurement. The contribution of emergency department to the screening for hypertension, by recognizing the presence of elevated blood pressure and then making a referral for diagnostic confirmation, could provide an opportunity to detect a large number of people with hypertension.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".