Key result
Simplified BP screening tables showed good performance (AUC 0.93 for AAP 2017 and 0.96 for Fourth Report) compared to ESH 2016 guidelines, though with high false positive rates.
Why the study?
Do simplified blood pressure screening tables accurately identify high blood pressure in children and adolescents compared to ESH 2016 guidelines?
Cross-Sectional (n=2,832)
Do simplified blood pressure screening tables accurately identify high blood pressure in children and adolescents compared to ESH 2016 guidelines?
Simplified blood pressure screening tables based on age show excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value for identifying high blood pressure in pediatric populations, though they yield a high rate of false positive results.
High false-positive rates may drive excess pediatric referrals; leaves open need for prospective validation against ESH 2016.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of the simplified American Academy Pediatrics (AAP) 2017 guideline table and a simplified table based on the Fourth Report blood pressure (BP) reference tables for high BP screening compared with the European Society Hypertension 2016 guideline diagnostic thresholds. METHODS: We obtained data from a cross-sectional, school-based screening study in north Greece during 2013-2016. BP was measured by mercury sphygmomanometer. The simple tables' performance for high BP was assessed by receiver operator characteristic curve analysis, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: The study population included 1846 children aged 6-12 years and 986 adolescents aged 13-18 years. Compared with the European Society Hypertension 2016 classification, the AAP 2017 simple table showed AUC 0.93, sensitivity 95.5%, specificity 91.6%, PPV 35.9%, and NPV 99.7%, whereas the Fourth Report one showed AUC 0.96, sensitivity 99.2%, specificity 93.2%, PPV 42.1%, and NPV 99.9%. Comparing the prevalence of high BP by the two tables, we found agreement in 96.9% of the participants, and disagreement in 3.1% (kappa coefficient = 0.85, P < 0.001). 20.8% of the adolescents classified for further screening by the Fourth Report, but not by the AAP 2017 simple table, had BP levels at the high-normal category. CONCLUSION: Simple tables for BP screening based on age present good performance to identify children and adolescents with high BP levels. However, they may provide high rate of false positive results, and the simple table by the AAP 2017 guideline may fail to classify some adolescents eligible for further BP evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stabouli et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in High blood pressure (n=2,832). Simplified AAP 2017 and Fourth Report blood pressure reference tables vs. European Society Hypertension 2016 guideline diagnostic thresholds was evaluated on High blood pressure screening performance (AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV). Simplified BP screening tables showed good performance (AUC 0.93 for AAP 2017 and 0.96 for Fourth Report) compared to ESH 2016 guidelines, though with high false positive rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: