MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297916682 · doi:10.1161/hyp.79.suppl_1.p223

Abstract P223: Hypertension Telemonitoring And Protocolized Case Management For Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4297916682 on OpenAlexaff
Darren Lau, Jennifer Ringrose, McAlister Finlay, Miriam Fradette, Peter W. Wood, Pierre Boulanger, Scott Klarenbach, Jayna Holroyd‐Leduc, Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan, Doreen M. Rabi, Raj Padwal

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureRandomized controlled trialOdds ratioAmbulatoryInternal medicineDiastolePsychological interventionPhysical therapyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Home blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring combined with case management leads can reduce BP in adults with hypertension. However, the benefits of telemonitoring and case management for hypertension are not well established in older (age >= 65 years) adults. Interventions that can safely improve BP control in this distinct group will be critically important, particularly given recent trials showing cardiovascular benefits of intensive BP lowering in this group, and their increased vulnerability to over-treatment-related side effects. Methods: Twelve-month, open-label, randomized controlled trial of community-dwelling older adults comparing home BP telemonitoring (HBPM) with pharmacist-led case management versus enhanced usual care with HBPM alone. The primary outcome was the proportion achieving age-specific systolic BP targets on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Changes in HBPM were also examined. Logistic and linear regression were used for analyses, with adjustment for baseline BP. Results: Subjects randomized to intervention (n = 61) and control (n = 59) groups were mostly female (77%), with mean age of 79.5 years. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for ABPM BP target achievement was 1.48 (95% CI 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 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 subjects had a higher rate of systolic BP < 110 (21% vs 5%, p = 0.009), but no differences in orthostatic symptoms, syncope, non-mechanical falls, or ED visits. Adherence to HBPM declined by 12 months, with 65% of trial-completers providing all 4 of the study-driven 3-monthly HBPM series. Conclusions: Home BP telemonitoring and pharmacist case management did not improve achievement of target range ambulatory BP, but did reduce home BP. It was not associated with major adverse consequences. Further trials will be necessary to refine HBPM interventions, improve adherence, and determine effectiveness in older individuals more conclusively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207