Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33022021›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Prevalence of hypertension among adolescents (10-19 years) in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies.

Roy Arokiam Daniel, Partha Haldar, Manya Prasad, Shashi Kant, Anand Krishnan, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Rakesh Kumar

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The Influence BetweenAIDS research and human retroviruses · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Roy Arokiam DanielCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Partha HaldarCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4563-3675
Manya PrasadCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Shashi KantCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Anand KrishnanCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Sanjeev Kumar GuptaCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.
Rakesh KumarCentre for Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the well-known short-term and long-term ill effects of elevated blood pressure in children and adolescents, pooled data on its burden among Indian adolescents have not yet been synthesized.

objectivesWe did a systematic review with meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescents (10-19 years) in India.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Google Scholar and IndMed, and included cross-sectional studies reporting data on hypertension prevalence among 10 to19 years old and published in English language from their inception till 1st March 2020. Modified New castle Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias based on research design, recruitment strategy, response rate and reliability of outcome determination. A random effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence, and heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane's Q statistic test of heterogeneity and I2 statistic. To explore the heterogeneity, we did a meta-regression, and sub-group analyses based on region, study setting and number of blood pressure readings.

resultsOut of 25 studies (pooled sample of 27,682 participants) six studies were of high, eighteen of moderate, and one was of low quality. The prevalence of hypertension across studies ranged from 2% to 20.5%, with a pooled estimate of 7.6% (95% CI: 6.1 to 9.1%), I2 = 96.6% (p-value <0.001). Sub-group analysis restricted only to the western India demonstrated a smaller heterogeneity (I2 = 18.3%). In univariate model of meta-regression, diagnostic criteria was significantly associated with pooled prevalence (-4.33, 95%CI: -7.532, -1.134).

conclusionThe pooled prevalence of hypertension among adolescent in India is 7.6% with substantial heterogeneity between the studies. To tackle the high prevalence of hypertension among adolescents, early detection by screening under school health programme and opportunistic screening at Paediatric OPD should be implemented by Policy makers.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansHypertensionIndiaPrevalenceYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33022021
PMCPMC7537899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.