MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Device and non-device-guided slow breathing to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4306320484 on OpenAlexaff
K S De Freitas Goncalves, Ana Carolina Queiroz Godoy Daniel, José Luiz Tatagiba Lamas, Henrique Ceretta Oliveira, Rubens Carvalho Silveira, Louise Cloutier, Eugênia Velludo Veiga

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureMeta-analysisInternal medicineBreathingCardiologyComorbidityRandomized controlled trialKidney diseaseDiastoleAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Backgroud Hypertension (HTN) is a multifactorial chronic disease. Considering the high prevalence rates of this disease, treatment of HTN is necessary, not only to reduce BP levels, but also to prevent the development of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and kidney diseases. This treatment can be medication and/or non-farmacological, like device-guided slow breathing (DGSB) or non-device-guided slow breathing (NDGSB). Purpose The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarize the effects of DGSB and NDGSB on blood pressure levels of patients with hypertension. Methods This study is systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, about hypertensive patients, with or without comorbidity, over 18 years old, of both sexes, with or without hypertensive medication. The selected studies showed comparisons between groups that performed DGSB and/or NDGSB with control conditions. The primary outcome was the value of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after the interventions. Results Twenty-two studies involving 17,214 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. Considerable heterogeneity was revealed between studies. Using random effect model, it was found that DGSB did not significantly reduce SBP and DBP compared to usual care, both in terms BP values and in relation to their variations (SBP, MD −2.13 mmHg, [95% CI −12.71 to 8.44], 288 individuals; I2=93%, high heterogenity: DBP, MD −0.90, 95% CI −3.97 to 2.11, 288 individuals; I2=63%, substantial heterogenity. SBP variations MD −2.42, 95% CI −7.24 to 2.40, 443 individuals; I2=85% high heterogenity/DBP variations MD −1.67, 95% CI −4.57 to 1.24, 443 individuals; I2=80%, high heterogenity). Conclusion Based on these results it appears that DGSB did not reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients and NDGSB is a new path for future. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.030
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207