4.0 Article

Profiles of blood pressure among children and adolescents categorized by BMI and waist circumference

期刊

BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 295-300

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000203

关键词

adolescent; blood pressure; BMI; waist circumference

资金

  1. medical and health program of Shandong, China [2014WS0376]
  2. Department of Education in Shandong Province, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundBMI and waist circumference (WC) are two commonly used measurements for defining general and central obesity. The present study examined the profiles of blood pressure (BP) among children and adolescents categorized by BMI and WC in Shandong, China.Participants and methodsA total of 38810 students (19453 boys and 19357 girls) aged 7-17 years participated in this study. Height, weight, WC, and BP of all participants were measured, and BMI was calculated. Relatively high BP status was defined as systolic BP and/or diastolic BP 95th percentile for age and sex. All individuals were classified into four groups (Q1-Q4) according to the age-specific and sex-specific quartiles of BMI and WC; the BP level and the prevalence of relatively high BP among the four groups were compared.ResultsIn both boys and girls, significant differences in BP level and the prevalence of relatively high BP were observed among the four groups categorized by BMI and WC separately (P<0.01). Children and adolescents in the high BMI group (Q4) had higher systolic BP and diastolic BP than their counterparts in the low BMI group (Q1) in all age groups (P<0.01), the range of differences being 5.7-10.3, 3.6-5.6mmHg for boys and 3.9-8.7, 2.2-5.3mmHg for girls, respectively. Similar differences were also observed among different groups categorized by WC.ConclusionHigh BMI and WC are associated with elevated BP. Our findings emphasize the importance of the prevention of general and central obesity to prevent future-related problems such as hypertension in children and adolescents.

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

4.0
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