ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2020
Height-based equations as screening tools for elevated blood pressure in the SAYCARE study.
Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Height-based equations as screening tools for high blood pressure in pediatric practice, the GENOBOX study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the accuracy of four height-based equations: blood pressure to height ratio (BPHR), modified BPHR (MBPHR), new modified BPHR (NMBPHR), and height-based equations (HBE) for screening elevated BP in children and adolescents in the SAYCARE study. We measured height and BP of 829 children and adolescents from seven South American cities. Receiving operating curves were used to assess formula performance to diagnose elevated BP in comparison to the 2017 clinical guideline. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for the four screening formulas. The diagnostic agreement was evaluated with the kappa coefficient. The HBE equation showed the maximum sensitivity (100%) in children, both for boys and girls, and showed the best performance results, with a very high NPV (>99%) and high PPV (>60%) except for female children (53.8%). In adolescents, the highest sensitivity (100%) was achieved with the NMBPHR for both sexes. Kappa coefficients indicated that HBE had the highest agreement with the gold standard diagnostic method (between 0.70 and 0.75), except for female children (0.57). Simplified methods are friendlier than the percentile gold standard tables. The HBE equation showed better performance than the other formulas in this Latin American pediatric population.
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.