P151 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOME BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT ARE INCONSISTENT BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective. Recommendations made across blood pressure (BP) guidelines should use consistent messaging to inform patient education for home BP measurement. It is not known if recommendations for home BP measurement are consistent across BP guidelines, which was the aim of this study. Methods. Recommendations for home BP measurement were extracted verbatim from six BP guidelines and expert consensus statements (Australian, United States, Canadian, European, International and Japanese). Consistency between BP guidelines was assessed by head-to-head comparison of recommendations and classified as inconsistent if the recommendation was not differed from one or more other recommendation. Analysis was conducted independently by two investigators (EC, KS) and conflicts adjudicated by two other investigators (NC, DP). Results. In total, 101 recommendations for home BP measurement were identified, and each guideline contained a median of 33 recommendations. Forty-four recommendations (44%) were present in two or more of the six guidelines. The only recommendation made by all six guidelines was to measure BP in a seated position. Forty-nine recommendations (49%) were inconsistent with at least one other recommendation. Twenty-nine of these recommendations (59%) contained a time parameter such as how many days to measure BP at home and how long to abstain from caffeine or tobacco usage prior to measurement. All recommendations on choosing and fitting a BP cuff were inconsistent, except the recommendations to fit the cuff to a bare arm and choose an appropriately sized cuff. Conclusion. There is a lack of consistency in the recommendations made for home BP measurement by international guidelines. Harmonisation across BP guidelines is needed to create clear, unambiguous messaging in guideline recommendations to support implementation of evidence-based care for home BP measurement and management.
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 | 0.056 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".