4.2 Article

Impact of updated pediatric hypertension criteria on prevalence estimates of hypertension among Chinese children

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 530-536

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41371-020-0370-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Tianjin Science and Technology Development Fund for Colleges and Universities [20080132]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81602922]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the impact of the 2017 AAP Guidelines on pediatric hypertension prevalence estimates in Chinese children. Results showed a significant increase in hypertension prevalence and a decrease in prehypertension prevalence under the new criteria. The updated definitions particularly affected boys, overweight children, and older children in terms of prevalence estimation.
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of updated pediatric hypertension (HTN) criteria (the 2017 AAP Guidelines) on prevalence estimates of HTN and prehypertension among Chinese children compared to the 2004 Fourth Report. A total of 2093 children aged 7-15 years from five schools in Tianjin, China were selected using a multistage random cluster sampling method. The prevalence of HTN per the 2017 AAP Guidelines (10.1%) was significantly higher than that per the Fourth Report (6.6%), whereas the prevalence of prehypertension per the 2017 AAP Guidelines (6.3%) was significantly lower than that per the Fourth Report (8.8%). From the 2004 Fourth Report to the 2017 AAP Guidelines, a total of 117 (5.6%) children were reclassified to have higher blood pressure. The two criteria had better consistency in the diagnosis of systolic abnormalities than in the diagnosis of diastolic abnormalities. The updated definitions for pediatric HTN have a substantive impact on the prevalence estimation among Chinese children, especially among boys, overweight children, and older 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