MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MANEJO DA HIPERTENSÃO E DIABETES NA ATENÇÃO BÁSICA: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DAS ESTRATÉGIAS DE CONTROLE E ACOMPANHAMENTO

2025· article· W4416257619 on OpenAlex
Gabriela Roldo Tieppo, Larissa Oliveira, Ângela Zangali Toigo, Vitória Kleinubing Abal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista fisio&terapia. · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicBlood pressureDiabetes mellitusObservational studyRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionCohortMEDLINEClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies for systemic arterial hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in primary health care, identifying the most effective approaches for blood pressure and glycemic control. Methods: Systematic review conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, SciELO, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from January 2009 to September 2024. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies evaluating management strategies for adults with hypertension and/or diabetes in primary care settings. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment using RoB 2 for clinical trials and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Primary outcomes were blood pressure control (<140/90 mmHg) and glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE system. Results: We identified 2,847 records, of which 42 studies met inclusion criteria, involving 28,564 participants. The most effective strategies included: multiprofessional shared care (RR 1.34; 95% CI 1.18-1.52 for blood pressure control), structured health education programs (MD -0.8%; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.4 for HbA1c), and standardized clinical management protocols (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.15-1.43 for glycemic control). Telemonitoring proved effective in contexts with adequate technological resources (MD -8.2 mmHg; 95% CI -12.1 to -4.3 for systolic blood pressure). Combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions demonstrated superiority over isolated approaches. Evidence quality ranged from moderate to high for primary outcomes. Conclusions: Integrated multiprofessional strategies, standardized protocols, and structured educational programs are effective for hypertension and diabetes control in primary care. Implementation of shared care models and remote monitoring technologies can optimize clinical outcomes. The findings provide robust evidence to guide health policies and clinical protocols in primary care settings.

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.

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), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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