4.2 Article

Prediction models for the risk of new-onset hypertension in ethnic Chinese in Taiwan

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 294-303

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/jhh.2010.63

关键词

cohort study; prediction model; community screening

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 97-2314-B-002-130-MY3, 97-3112-B-002-034-]
  2. Taiwan Department of Health Clinical Trial Research Center of Excellence [DOH 99-TD-B-111-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction model for hypertension risk in Chinese is still lacking. We aimed to propose prediction models for new-onset hypertension for ethnic Chinese based on a prospective cohort design on community, which recruited 2506 individuals (50.8% women) who were not hypertensive at the baseline (1990-91). Total 1029 cases of new-onset hypertension developed during a median of 6.15 (interquartile range, 4.04-9.02) years of follow-up. In the clinical model, gender (2 points), age (8 points), body mass index (10 points), systolic blood pressure (19 points) and diastolic blood pressure (7 points) were assigned. The biochemical measures, including white blood count (3 points), fasting glucose (1 point), uric acid (3 points), additional to above clinical variables, were constructed. The areas under the receiver operative characteristic curves (AUCs) were 0.732 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.712-0.752) for the point-based clinical model and 0.735 (95% CI, 0.715-0.755) for the point-based biochemical model. The coefficient-based models had a good performance (AUC, 0.737-0.741). The point-based clinical model had a similar net reclassification improvement as the coefficient-based clinical model (P = 0.30), and had a higher improvement than the point-based biochemical model (P = 0.015). We concluded that the point-based clinical model could be considered as the first step to identify high-risk populations for hypertension among Chinese. Journal of Human Hypertension (2011) 25, 294-303; doi:10.1038/jhh.2010.63; published online 8 July 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据