Blood pressure measurement at kiosks in public spaces: systematic review and consensus statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension and the World Hypertension League
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kiosk devices for unsupervised self-measurement of blood pressure (BP) are being used in public spaces and healthcare settings in several countries. This statement by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability provides a review of the published evidence on kiosk BP devices and consensus recommendations for their requirements and clinical use. A systematic literature search identified 54 relevant studies. Kiosk BP measurements appeared to be close to office BP [mean difference systolic 0.2 mmHg (95% confidence intervals -1.3 to 1.8); diastolic -0.4 mmHg (-3.5 to 2.7)], and higher than daytime ambulatory and home BP [mean difference 6.0 mmHg (1.6-10.4)/5.0 (2-8) and 8.1 mmHg (-2.6 to 18.9)/0.2 (-9.6 to 10.0), respectively]. Randomized or observational studies using kiosk BP measurements for hypertension screening or for assessing hypertension control were also included, as well as studies investigating users' and healthcare professionals' opinions, acceptability, and perspectives regarding kiosk BP measurements, and validation studies of kiosk BP devices. These studies had considerable heterogeneity in design, setting, methodology, measurement protocol, and sample size. Thus, at present, the clinical utility of kiosk BP measurements is uncertain. This ESH consensus statement acknowledges the potential of kiosk BP measurement as an emerging method for unsupervised self-measurement in the context of opportunistic screening for hypertension in apparently healthy people and the long-term monitoring of people with diagnosed hypertension. Requirements for the design, validation, function, and use of kiosk BP monitors are provided, together with the pending research questions on their optimal implementation in clinical practice.
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 | 0.021 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".