Efficacy of Telemedicine in Hypertension Care Through Home Blood Pressure Monitoring and Videoconferencing: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The burden of time is often the primary reason why patients discontinue their treatment. Telemedicine may help patients adhere to treatment by offering convenience. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the efficacy and safety of telemedicine for the management of hypertension in Japan. METHODS: Patients with uncomplicated hypertension were recruited through web advertising between November 2015 and February 2017. They were then screened, stratified by office systolic blood pressure (SBP), and randomized into two groups: usual care (UC) and telemedicine. The telemedicine group used a 3G network-attached home blood pressure (BP) monitoring device, consulted hypertension specialists from an academic hospital through web-based video visits, and received prescription medication by mail for 1 year. The UC group used the same BP monitoring device but was managed using self-recorded BP readings, which included their diary entries and office BP taken in a community practice setting. RESULTS: Initial screening was completed by 99 patients, 54% of whom had untreated hypertension. Baseline BP was similar between the groups, but the weekly average SBP at the end of the 1-year study period was significantly lower in the telemedicine group (125, SD 9 mmHg vs 131, SD 12 mmHg, respectively; P=.02). SBP in the telemedicine group was 3.4 mmHg lower in the morning and 5.8 mmHg lower in the evening. The rate of SBP control (135 mmHg) was better in the telemedicine group (85.3% vs 70.0%; P=.01), and significant adverse events were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence suggesting that antihypertensive therapy via home BP telemonitoring and web-based video visits achieve better BP control than conventional care and is a safe treatment alternative that warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000025372; https://tinyurl.com/47ejkn4b.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".