ArticleClinical hypertension2026
A comparison of blood pressure reference values and the prevalence of high blood pressure in Indian adolescents aged 10-16 years using American and Indian reference standards.
Article in Clinical hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High blood pressure (BP) in children and adolescents is a major public health concern globally, including in India. It is typically defined by BP > 95th percentile of normative BP distribution, with the American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guidelines (AAP-CPG 2017) being most widely used. However, Indian-specific reference derived from healthy children set higher BP cut-offs than AAP-CPG 2017, leading to debate about their suitability. This study compares high BP prevalence using both references and examines how each classification by the 2 reference standards relates to cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods: A secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey (2016-2018) was conducted to compare the prevalence of high BP in Indian adolescents aged 10-16 years using Indian and AAP-CPG 2017 references. The association between cardio-metabolic risk markers and high BP classified by these references was examined by survey weighted multiple log-binomial regression to examine the validity of each reference standard. Results: In young adolescents aged 10-12 years, the prevalence of high BP was 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6-19%) and 33.6% (95% CI, 30.4-37%) by Indian and AAP-CPG reference respectively. Similarly, in older adolescents aged 13-16 years, the prevalence of high BP was lower with Indian reference. The adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) for high triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein were significantly elevated in young adolescents with high BP by AAP-CPG 2017 reference but not with Indian reference. Conclusions: The prevalence of high BP among Indian adolescents differed significantly based on the BP reference standard used. Clustering of cardiometabolic risk markers with high BP was observed when using the AAP-CPG reference but not with Indian reference. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the cross-sectional study design with single visit BP measurement and limited generalizability of the Indian BP reference standard. Larger, nationally representative studies using standardized BP measurement methods are essential to establish validated BP norms for Indian adolescents.
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.