Min Lai MD , Huiyu Tong MD , Yirong Wan MD , Wenying Wang MD , Hai Su MD, PhD
{"title":"The variance of hypertension prevalence detected by epidemiological survey against clinical practice: data from a rural population in South China","authors":"Min Lai MD , Huiyu Tong MD , Yirong Wan MD , Wenying Wang MD , Hai Su MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jash.2018.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The present study intended to evaluate the variation of the hypertensive prevalence detected on a single-day blood pressure (BP) value against that on an average of 3-day BP values. This study included 1185 residents (age 21–94, 62.6 ± 14.0 years, 491 males) for BP measurements<span> over three separate visits within a 7-day period. The newly diagnosed hypertension on the first day BP value was recorded as hypertension by epidemiological method, whereas that on the average of 3-day BP values as hypertension by clinical method. True positive rate (TPR) was the ratio of the newly diagnosed hypertensives by clinical method to those by epidemiological method. The overestimation ratio was calculated based on the following formula: (epidemiological prevalence–clinical prevalence)/epidemiological prevalence. Our results showed that of the 367 newly diagnosed hypertensives by epidemiological method, 308 were confirmed by clinical method, and with a TPR of 83.9%. The epidemiological prevalence of hypertension was higher than the clinical prevalence (41.1% vs. 36.1%) with an overestimation ratio of 12.2%. In addition, the participants aged <65 years had a lower TPR (77.9% vs. 87.8%, </span></span><em>P</em><span> = .012) against the participants aged ≥65 years. Furthermore, participants with systolic BP values of <160 mm Hg (78.2% vs. 100%, </span><em>P</em><span> < .001) or diastolic BP values of <100 mm Hg also had a lower TPR (70.1% vs. 100%, </span><em>P</em> = .006) compared with those having a systolic BP of 140–159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90–99 mm Hg. It is concluded that in this population, the hypertension prevalence by epidemiological method is overestimated by 12.2% against clinical hypertension prevalence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17220,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The American Society of Hypertension","volume":"12 12","pages":"Pages e103-e106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.jash.2018.11.006","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The American Society of Hypertension","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933171118303115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
The present study intended to evaluate the variation of the hypertensive prevalence detected on a single-day blood pressure (BP) value against that on an average of 3-day BP values. This study included 1185 residents (age 21–94, 62.6 ± 14.0 years, 491 males) for BP measurements over three separate visits within a 7-day period. The newly diagnosed hypertension on the first day BP value was recorded as hypertension by epidemiological method, whereas that on the average of 3-day BP values as hypertension by clinical method. True positive rate (TPR) was the ratio of the newly diagnosed hypertensives by clinical method to those by epidemiological method. The overestimation ratio was calculated based on the following formula: (epidemiological prevalence–clinical prevalence)/epidemiological prevalence. Our results showed that of the 367 newly diagnosed hypertensives by epidemiological method, 308 were confirmed by clinical method, and with a TPR of 83.9%. The epidemiological prevalence of hypertension was higher than the clinical prevalence (41.1% vs. 36.1%) with an overestimation ratio of 12.2%. In addition, the participants aged <65 years had a lower TPR (77.9% vs. 87.8%, P = .012) against the participants aged ≥65 years. Furthermore, participants with systolic BP values of <160 mm Hg (78.2% vs. 100%, P < .001) or diastolic BP values of <100 mm Hg also had a lower TPR (70.1% vs. 100%, P = .006) compared with those having a systolic BP of 140–159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90–99 mm Hg. It is concluded that in this population, the hypertension prevalence by epidemiological method is overestimated by 12.2% against clinical hypertension prevalence.
本研究旨在评估每日血压(BP)值与平均3天血压值检测的高血压患病率的差异。该研究包括1185名居民(年龄21-94岁,62.6±14.0岁,491名男性),在7天内进行了三次单独的血压测量。以流行病学方法记录第一天血压值为高血压,以临床方法记录3天血压平均值为高血压。真阳性率(True positive rate, TPR)是指临床方法诊断的高血压患者与流行病学方法诊断的高血压患者之比。高估率按以下公式计算:(流行病学患病率-临床患病率)/流行病学患病率。结果发现,在367例用流行病学方法确诊的高血压患者中,临床确诊308例,TPR为83.9%。高血压流行病学患病率高于临床患病率(41.1%比36.1%),高估率为12.2%。此外,65岁参与者的TPR低于≥65岁参与者(77.9% vs. 87.8%, P = 0.012)。此外,收缩压值为160 mm Hg的参与者(78.2% vs. 100%, P <与收缩压为140 ~ 159 mm Hg或舒张压为90 ~ 99 mm Hg的患者相比,患者的TPR也较低(70.1% vs. 100%, P = 0.006)。结论:在该人群中,用流行病学方法估计的高血压患病率与临床高血压患病率相比,高估了12.2%。
期刊介绍:
Cessation.
The Journal of the American Society of Hypertension (JASH) publishes peer-reviewed articles on the topics of basic, applied and translational research on blood pressure, hypertension and related cardiovascular disorders and factors; as well as clinical research and clinical trials in hypertension. Original research studies, reviews, hypotheses, editorial commentary and special reports spanning the spectrum of human and experimental animal and tissue research will be considered. All research studies must have been conducted following animal welfare guidelines. Studies involving human subjects or tissues must have received approval of the appropriate institutional committee charged with oversight of human studies and informed consent must be obtained.