4.2 Article

Associations between adiposity indicators and elevated blood pressure among Chinese children and adolescents

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 236-240

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2014.95

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [APP1045000]
  2. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20120001110016]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172683]
  4. Research Special Fund for Public Welfare Industry of Health of China [201202010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adiposity is closely related to elevated blood pressure (BP); however, which adiposity indicator is the best predictor of elevated BP among children and adolescents is unclear. To clarify this, 99 366 participants aged 7-17 years from the Chinese National Survey on Students' Constitution and Health in 2010 were included in this study. The adiposity indicators, including weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), hip circumference, body adiposity index (BAI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and skinfold thickness, were converted into z-scores before use. The associations between elevated BP and adiposity indicators z-scores were assessed by using logistic regression model and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). In general, BAI, BMI and WHtR z-scores were superior for predicting elevated BP compared with weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, WHR and skinfold thickness z-scores. In both sexes, BMI z-score revealed slightly higher AUCs than other indicators. Our findings suggest that general adiposity indicators were equivalent, if not superior, to abdominal adiposity indicators to predict elevated BP. BMI could be a better predictor of elevated BP than other studied adiposity indicators in children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available