ArticleJournal of human hypertension2026
Pediatric hypertension prevalence with 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 within-visit blood pressure readings (NHANES 2013-2020).
Article in Journal of human 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare hypertension prevalence using 'initial' blood pressure (BP), 'subsequent' BP (averaged second and third readings) and 'total' BP (averaged three readings), we included 8-17-year-old youth with three BP readings from NHANES 2013-2020. From 2013-2016, BP was obtained using auscultation (manual protocol, MP) and subsequently, using oscillometry (automated protocol, AP). We excluded subjects with 'zero' diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In 5656 subjects, clinical hypertension (high systolic blood pressure [SBP] and/or DBP) prevalence was highest with 'initial' BP (350/5 642, 6.2% [95% CI 5.6-6.9%]), lower with 'subsequent' BP (289/5 642, 5.1% [4.6-5.7%], p < 0.001), and lowest with 'total' BP (251/5 642, 4.4% [3.9-5.0%], p < 0.001). Both MP and AP groups maintained this trend with a significantly lower hypertension prevalence with 'total' vs. 'subsequent' BP. An exception to the trend occurred in the AP group for three conditions: diastolic hypertension, hypertension in high BMI and Hispanic subjects. Diastolic hypertension prevalence with 'subsequent' DBP (86/2 285, 3.8% [3.1-4.6%]) exceeded that with 'initial' DBP (83/2 285, 3.6% [2.9-4.5%]) and was lowest with 'total' DBP (59/2 285, 2.6% [2.0-3.3%]). Diastolic hypertension prevalence was higher (126/5 642, 2.2% [1.9 - 2.7%]) with the 2016 European guidelines (same as 'subsequent' DBP) than with 'total' DBP (94/5 642, 1.7% [1.4 - 2.0%]). Our findings support the inclusion of the first BP reading in BP categorization, as 'total BP' leads to lower hypertension classification than 'subsequent' BP.
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.