ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Adherence to Pediatric Screening.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Large, Diverse, Urban Cardiovascular Health e-Cohort in Childhood and Adolescence: Protocol for the Young Hearts Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- School-based screening for high blood pressure in children and adolescents: a systematic scoping review.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Article
- Blood pressure measurement practices in children and adolescents within primary care setting.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreventive screenings in children encourage maintenance of optimal cardiovascular health, but gaps may exist between recommendations and clinical practice. We evaluated adherence to pediatric guidelines for universal age-based and risk-based screening for body mass index, blood pressure, lipids, and blood glucose. METHODS AND
resultsWe used 2010 to 2018 ambulatory visit data from children aged 2 to 12 years within CAPRICORN (Chicago Area Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network), an electronic health record network in Chicago. This study included 87 549 children who attended 197 559 well-child encounters. Across all encounters, children were 51.5% male and mean (SD) age 6.4 (3.3) years. For each child who attended a well-child visit and met age and/or risk-based criteria, receipt of body mass index, blood pressure, lipids, and/or hemoglobin A1c or fasting blood glucose measurements were assessed. We used generalized estimating equations to calculate proportion adherence for each metric overall and stratified by age, sex, race and ethnicity, and insurance status. Universal age-based screening prevalence (95% CI) per 100 eligible visits was 77.1 (76.8-77.3) for body mass index, 33.4 (33.1-33.7) for blood pressure, and 9.6 (9.3-9.9) for lipids. Risk-based screening prevalence (95% CI) per 100 eligible visits was 13.9 (12.2-15.9) for blood pressure, 6.9 (6.4-7.5) for lipids, and 13.3 (12.6-14.1) for blood glucose.
conclusionsEarly screening of cardiovascular health risk factors could lead to earlier interventions, which could alter cardiovascular health trajectories across the lifetime. Low-to-moderate levels of adherence to universal age-based and risk-based cardiovascular health screening highlight the gap between recommendations and clinical practice, emphasizing the need to understand and address barriers to screening in pediatric populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.