4.3 Article

The impact of new guidelines on the prevalence of hypertension in children: A cross-sectional evaluation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 510-515

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jch.13512

关键词

blood pressure; guidelines; pediatric

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [U54 GM104938] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Updated clinical practice guidelines for screening blood pressures in pediatric patients were published in 2017. They differ from the previous guideline, known as the Fourth Report, providing updated population normal values and blood pressure categorization. We hypothesized that the prevalence of abnormal blood pressure in children and adolescents would be higher using the new clinical practice guidelines. We present a cross-sectional study of screening blood pressure values for children 3 to 18 years of age obtained during well-child visits at a primary care clinic. All blood pressure values were categorized using both the Fourth Report and the Clinical Practice Guideline. A total of 2635 blood pressure measurements were extracted, and 2600 were eligible for analysis. Using the clinical practice guideline, the prevalence of hypertension increased to 17.85% compared to 9.5% per the Fourth Report (P < 0.0001). Of those patients classified as having a normal blood pressure by the Fourth Report, 12% changed to abnormal when applying the Clinical Practice Guideline. All subgroups had a significant increase in the prevalence of abnormal blood pressure. The most dramatic increase in the prevalence of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension was seen in six patient subgroups: males, 3-12 years of age, Hispanic ethnicity, race designated as other, normal weight, and overweight. Applying the new Clinical Practice Guideline increased the prevalence of elevated blood pressure and stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension in children and adolescents, requiring more follow-up and intervention than previously expected for this patient population.

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

4.3
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