MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE VALUE OF EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT FOR THE SCREENING OF HYPERTENSION. PAIN IS A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR? SEEMS NOT

2021· article· en· W3153728589 on OpenAlexaff
André Michaud, Alain Vadeboncœur, Maxime Lamarre-Cliché, Lyne Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresMontreal Heart InstituteMontreal Clinical Research InstituteUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureEmergency departmentInternal medicinePhysical therapyEmergency medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The value of emergency department (ED) blood pressure measurement for the screening of hypertension remains unclear. A systematic review was conducted to assess the performance of a screening strategy in adults using blood pressure (BP) measurement at the time of an ED consultation. The link between pain and high blood pressure is also described. Design and method: A systematic literature search on Embase, CINHAL and Medline was carried out. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Intervention studies with adults including at least one BP measurement for all participants were included. A repeat blood pressure assessment had to have been carried out to assess the validity of the elevated BP value within the next few days after the ED initial visit. Results: After review of 1,030 articles published between 1985 and 2018, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria. Mean age of participants was 51.6 years. A single study reports that BP screening was measured according to all the recommendations within the HTN guidelines referred to in the study. Half of the patients (50.2%) with elevated BP during the ED visit had BP corresponding to uncontrolled elevated blood pressure at follow-up measurement. Data about pain and blood pressure is reported in six of the included studies. None of these found a significant relationship between the concomitant presence of pain and an elevated BP measurement, and the fact of having an elevated or normal BP in a subsequent measurement without the presence of pain. Conclusions: The value of the blood pressure measurement in the ED is far from useless because it allows recognizing a true hypertension in one in two adults presenting with elevated BP. Moreover, it would be a mistake to attribute to pain alone the fact of presenting with an elevated OBPM in ED. Such patients could just as well be hypertensive when an ambulatory measurement is performed later without the presence of pain.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.131
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.131
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207