ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
The overestimated prevalence of hypertension in a population survey: a cross-sectional study from Hebei province, China.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recognition, treatment, and control of hypertension in the Danish population-based Lolland-Falster Health Study.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Unveiling the hidden burden: estimating the proportion of undiagnosed depression, hypertension and diabetes - a modelling study using survey data from adults in England, 2011-2019.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCurrently, the prevalence of hypertension is mainly ascertained using a one-visit population survey, which may lead to overestimation. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of hypertension prevalence determined by a one-visit population survey.
methodsFor this cross-sectional study, we continuously enrolled 1116 volunteers without a hypertension history in Hebei province from January 2018 to December 2019. The study population included 511 (45.80%) males and 605 (54.20%) females with a mean age of 48 years. The hypertension prevalence was assessed using two methods: one-visit screening and daytime ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. We directly compared the performances of daytime ambulatory BP monitoring and one-visit screening in the same group of subjects. In addition, we explored possible thresholds to improve the detection of hypertension.
resultsDuring the one-visit survey, the mean BP value was about 8 mmHg higher than that determined by daytime ambulatory BP monitoring. The prevalence of hypertension was 29.84% and 14.07% during the one-visit and daytime multiple visit surveys, respectively. The risk factors for overestimated hypertension were female sex, body mass index < 24.00 kg/m
conclusionThe hypertension prevalence was likely overestimated by 2-fold in the one-visit survey group compared to the daytime ambulatory BP monitoring group. Thus, the threshold for one-visit BP screening should be raised to 148/96 mmHg to improve the accuracy of hypertension diagnosis.
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.