Key result
Averaging all three visit BP readings yields ~14% lower pediatric hypertension prevalence than guideline-based methods.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare pediatric hypertension prevalence using initial blood pressure, subsequent blood pressure, and total blood pressure across within-visit readings.
Does the method of averaging within-visit blood pressure readings (initial vs. subsequent vs. total) affect the prevalence of pediatric hypertension classification in youth aged 8-17?
Cross-Sectional (n=5,656)
Does the method of averaging within-visit blood pressure readings (initial vs. subsequent vs. total) affect the prevalence of pediatric hypertension classification in youth aged 8-17?
Including the first blood pressure reading in the average of three within-visit measurements ('total BP') results in a lower and potentially more accurate prevalence of pediatric hypertension compared to discarding it.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Total BP averaging may lower pediatric hypertension prevalence estimates; leaves open whether guidelines should shift from subsequent BP use.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riar et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Pediatric hypertension (n=5,656). 'Total' blood pressure (average of three readings) vs. 'Subsequent' blood pressure (average of second and third readings) was evaluated on Clinical hypertension prevalence (p=<0.001). Averaging all three within-visit blood pressure readings ('total' BP) yielded a significantly lower pediatric hypertension prevalence (4.4%) compared to averaging only the second and third readings (5.1%).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: