MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200356296 · doi:10.2196/33579

Device- and Nondevice-Guided Slow Breathing to Reduce Blood Pressure in Patients with Hypertension: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W4200356296 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kamila Shelry de Freitas Gonçalves, Ana Carolina Queiroz Godoy Daniel, José Luiz Tatagiba Lamas, Henrique Ceretta Oliveira, Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira Silveira, Lyne Cloutier, Eugênia Velludo Veiga

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisProtocol (science)MedicineBlood pressureBreathingSystematic reviewMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicineAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy can include both device-guided slow breathing (DGSB) and nondevice-guided slow breathing (NDGSB) in the treatment of systemic arterial hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to summarize the effects of DGSB on blood pressure levels of patients with hypertension based on the published literature to date. METHODS: A systematic search of all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of device-guided and nondevice-guided slow breathing in patients with hypertension, without language restriction, was carried out up to a publication date of January 2020 in nine databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, Web of Science, and Livivo. Clinical trial records databases (ClinicalTrials.gov), and bases for the open gray literature, including Gray Literature Report and ProQuest Central (Citation, Abstract or Indexing, and Dissertations and Theses), were also searched for potentially eligible RCTs. The quality assessment of the included studies will be performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Development and Evaluation) system. RESULTS: As of December 2021, the review was completed and all data from continuous variables referring to blood pressure values (mmHg) were synthesized. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review will provide a summary of the current evidence on the effects of both DGSB and NDGSB on blood pressure levels. This information can contribute to decision-making by health professionals related to the use of these interventions in patients with hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020147554; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=147554. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/33579.

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)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.035
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.005

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 head0.363
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207