MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403398298 · doi:10.1161/hyp.81.suppl_1.p311

Abstract P311: Revisiting unattended vs attended automated office blood pressure measurements: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403398298 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Deragon, Youssef Baati, Laurence Trudelle, Amel Merabtine, Dean S. Picone, Rémi Goupil

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisBlood pressureSystematic reviewMedicineInternal medicineMEDLINEBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Standardized automated office blood pressure (AOBP) measurement is now widely accepted as the preferred method for monitoring blood pressure (BP). However, disagreements persist amongst expert societies as to the need to perform AOBP in an unattended manner, where the patient is left alone in a quiet room. In 2019, two meta-analyses aiming to quantify the differences between unattended and attended BP showed opposite results. prompting the publication of several more studies on this subject. Our objective was thus to reassess the BP differences between unattended and attended AOBP when performed with the same device and an identical measurement protocol. Methods: This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and is registered on PROSPERO. Studies were included if both unattended and attended AOBP were measured on the same participants in a randomized or alternating sequence manner during a single visit with the same device and an identical measurement protocol apart from attendance status. Four databases were searched (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar). The primary outcome was the difference between unattended and attended systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP, expressed as weighted mean differences (95% confidence interval) using random-effects models. Results: From 8,088 screened studies, data was extracted from 15 studies which met the inclusion criteria (n=1,747 participants). In the pooled analysis, the attended compared with unattended BP was higher for SBP by 2.7 mmHg (95%CI 0.6 to 4.7) and DBP by 0.9 mmHg (95%CI 0.1 to 1.8). In leave-one out analyses, results were similar except when excluding the study with the most extreme BP difference (Chotruangnapa 2023) where the difference became non-significant. Conclusion: Standardized attended AOBP measurements result in slightly higher readings than unattended AOBP. Whether such small differences translate into clinically significant changes in management of BP remains uncertain. Therefore, standardized attended AOBP could be viewed as a reasonable option for BP measurement in a real-life clinical setting.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.175 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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