MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237254751 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000039

Interventions for deliberately altering blood pressure in acute stroke

2001· review· en· W4237254751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureStroke (engine)Confidence intervalPlaceboNicardipineInternal medicineMeta-analysisPerindoprilAnesthesiaCardiologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether hypertension should be treated after acute stroke, and some have hypothesised that blood pressure should be increased to improve cerebral perfusion. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effect of lowering or elevating blood pressure in people with acute stroke, and the effect of different vasoactive drugs on blood pressure in acute stroke. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, the Ottawa Stroke Trials Registry (1994), Medline (from 1965), Embase (from 1981), ISI, and existing review articles. We contacted researchers in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of interventions that aimed to alter blood pressure in patients within two weeks of acute ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality. Two reviewers extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 133 people were included. The trials tested the following vasodilators: nimodipine (66 people), nicardipine (five people), captopril (three people) and clonidine (two people). Oral calcium channel blockers (nimodipine, nicardipine) reduced systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference 10.9mmHg, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 19.7), diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference 9.5mmHg, 95% confidence interval 4.0 to 15.1) and heart rate (weighted mean difference 4.7 beats per minute, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 9.2) at 48 hours. The greatest fall in blood pressure over the first 24 hours was shown in patients given the highest dose of nimodipine. The relationship between change in blood pressure and clinical outcome was not clear. There was not enough information to assess the effect of drugs other than calcium channel blockers. No studies of interventions to raise blood pressure were found. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of altering blood pressure after acute stroke. Although oral calcium channel blockers appear to reduce blood pressure following acute stroke, the balance of benefit and risk remains unclear.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.218
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207