Telemonitoring and protocolized case management for hypertensive community dwelling older adults (TECHNOMED): a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring combined with case management leads to BP reductions in individuals with hypertension. However, its benefits are less clear in older (age ≥ 65 years) adults. METHODS: Twelve-month, open-label, randomized trial of community-dwelling older adults comparing the combination of home BP telemonitoring (HBPM) and pharmacist-led case management, vs. enhanced usual care with HBPM alone. The primary outcome was the proportion achieving systolic BP targets on 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Changes in HBPM were also examined. Logistic and linear regressions were used for analyses, adjusted for baseline BP. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early due to coronavirus disease 2019. Participants randomized to intervention (n = 61) and control (n = 59) groups were mostly female (77%), with mean age 79.5 years. The adjusted odds ratio for ABPM BP target achievement was 1.48 (95% confidence interval 0.87-2.52, P = 0.15). At 12 months, the mean difference in BP changes between intervention and control groups was -1.6/-1.1 for ABPM (P-value 0.26 for systolic BP and 0.10 for diastolic BP), and -4.9/-3.1 for HBPM (P-value 0.04 for systolic BP and 0.01 for diastolic BP), favoring the intervention. Intervention group participants had hypotension (systolic BP < 110) more frequently (21% vs. 5%, P = 0.009), but no differences in orthostatic symptoms, syncope, non-mechanical falls, or emergency department visits. CONCLUSIONS: Home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management did not improve achievement of target range ambulatory BP, but did reduce home BP. It did not result in major adverse consequences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".