ArticlePediatric cardiology2019
Diagnostic Effect of the Single BP Cut-Offs for Identifying Elevated BP and Hypertension in Adolescents Aged 13-17 Years.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of cardiovascular disease risk factors in Korean children: impact of various pediatric hypertension guidelines and application of the Korean blood pressure reference.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- A proposal to simplify the definition of pediatric hypertension: bridging the gap between perception and action.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Pediatric Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Health in Adulthood.Current hypertension reports · 2024Review
- A comparison of paediatric hypertension clinical practice guidelines and their ability to predict adult hypertension in an African birth cohort.Journal of human hypertension · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contrast to the percentile-based definitions of elevated blood pressure (BP) and hypertension for children and adolescents of all ages in the 2004 fourth report, the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) BP guideline recommends a change to single BP cut-offs for clinical diagnosis (120/< 80-129/< 80 mmHg for elevated BP and ≥ 130/80 mmHg for hypertension) in adolescents aged 13 years and older, and it also recommends researchers using the percentile-based definitions for more precise BP classification. The aim of our study was to assess the diagnostic effect of the single BP cut-offs for identifying adolescent abnormal BP as compared to the 2017 AAP percentile table by sex, age, and height. Data were from 8287 adolescents aged 13-17 years in NHANES 1999-2016 and 1659 adolescents aged 13-17 years in NHANES III (1988-1994). Compared to the 2017 AAP percentile table, the single BP thresholds performed well for identifying elevated BP in adolescents in NHANES 1999-2016/NHANES III, with high values of area under the curve 0.93/0.95, sensitivity 86.7%/89.9%, specificity 100%/100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%/100%, negative predictive value (NPV) 98.2%/98.8%, and kappa coefficient 0.92/0.94. The results were similar for identifying hypertension in the two datasets, with especially high PPV 100%/100% and NPV 99.2%/99.2%. However, the sensitivity values of the simple method for identifying hypertension were not satisfactory among girls, younger adolescents, and Hispanic adolescents in both datasets. In conclusion, the single BP cut-offs in general performed similarly well for identifying abnormal BP as compared to 2017 AAP percentile table, but not well in some subgroups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.