Device and non-device-guided slow breathing to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract IntroductionPhysiotherapy can include both device-guided slow breathing and device-guided slow breathing in the treatment of systemic arterial hypertension. MethodsA systematic search of all published randomized controlled trials on the effects of device-guided and non-device-guided slow breathing on hypertensive patients, without language restriction, will be carried out until January 2020 in nine databases: Pubmed / MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ( CINAHL), Scopus, Web of Science, Livivo, as well as a search of clinical trial records databases, CT.GOV (Clinical trials.Gov), and bases for the Open Grey gray literature, Gray Literature Report, ProQuest Central (Citation, Abstract or Indexing and Dissertations and Theses). In all of these databases, potentially eligible studies including completed and ongoing ECAs were researched. The quality assessment of the included studies will be conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. DiscussionThis systematic review will provide a summary of the current evidence on the effects of both device-guided slow breathing and device-guided slow breathing on blood pressure levels. This information can contribute to decision making by health professionals related to the use of these interventions in hypertensive patients. Following the guidelines, this systematic review protocol was registered with the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42020147554.
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 | 0.054 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.008 |
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".