The Evolution of Hypertension Guidelines Over the Last 20+ Years: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is the most common modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. In the last two decades, the guidelines have evolved tremendously from areas with no recommendations for screening or treatment to targeted recommendations for some at-risk groups. We sought to go through the literature that provided guidelines for the management of hypertension at any point in time over the last 22 years from 2000 to 2022. We searched four databases: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, using specified search terms. The keywords used were "hypertension" and "guidelines." We combined them using the Boolean operators (AND, OR) and searched for articles. A total of 2461 publications were initially identified; 348 publications were excluded after screening for full-text availability. The full-text articles were further filtered based on title and abstract screening. Following this, a total of 1443 articles were excluded. The remaining 670 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of the 670 full-text articles, 480 were excluded based on exclusion criteria, and following the full-text article screening, 190 articles met the final inclusion criteria. Most of these guideline evolutions concerned establishing and adjusting thresholds for the subgroups of the elderly population and patients with diabetic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, and stroke. Furthermore, the medications of choice are now guided by the stage of disease, presence or absence of comorbidities, and other relevant information, as opposed to ethnicity, which was previously a heavy yardstick for medication choice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".