CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,395Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSodium Intake and HealthHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension Among United States Adults 1999–2004

Ong, Kwok Leung, Cheung, Bernard M.Y., Man, Yu Bun, Lau, Chu Pak, Lam, Karen S.L.·2007·Hypertension
DOI 10.1161/01.hyp.0000252676.46043.18
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Detection of hypertension and blood pressure control are critically important for reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. We analyzed the trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States in the period 1999–2004. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004 database. Blood pressure information on 14 653 individuals (4749 in 1999–2000, 5032 in 2001–2002, and 4872 in 2003–2004) aged ≥18 years was used. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure ≥140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medications. The prevalence of hypertension in 2003–2004 was 7.3±0.9%, 32.6±2.0%, and 66.3±1.8% in the 18 to 39, 40 to 59, and ≥60 age groups, respectively. The overall prevalence was 29.3%. When compared with 1999–2000, there were nonsignificant increases in the overall prevalence, awareness, and treatment rates of hypertension. The blood pressure control rate was 29.2±2.3% in 1999–2000 and 36.8±2.3% in 2003–2004. The age-adjusted increase in control rate was 8.1% (95% CI: 2.4 to 13.8%; P =0.006). The control rates increased significantly in both sexes, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans. Among the ≥60 age group, the awareness, treatment, and control rates of hypertension had all increased significantly ( P ≤0.01). The improvement in blood pressure control is encouraging, although the prevalence of hypertension has not declined.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.hyp.0000252676.46043.18

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two lower quality studies and five well-done studies (13%, including one at a trend level) reported higher BP in the more R/S or with religious fasting.

    “Two lower quality studies [405, 406] and five well-done studies [407–411] (13%, including one at a trend level), however, reported higher BP in the more R/S or with religious fasting.”

    From Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications (2012) · cites this paper as [405]

    The Results and Discussion report US hypertension patterns by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and BMI, but do not address religious involvement or fasting. Searches for religious fasting, religiosity, and religion found no passage linking these to higher blood pressure or assessing the cited studies' quality. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Plan and operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Exami- nation Survey 1988 -94. Vital Health Stat 1. 1994;32:1-407.
  2. Klein RJ, Schoenborn CA. Age adjustment using the 2000 projected US population. Healthy People 2010. Stat Notes. 2001;20:1-10.
  3. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 (conference ed, in 2 vols). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. Available at: http://www.health.gov/ healthypeople. Accessed April 24, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ong, K. L., Cheung, B. M. Y., Man, Y. B., Lau, C. P., & Lam, K. S. L.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
ORCID
Venue
Hypertension
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2007-01
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
69-75
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
DOI
10.1161/01.hyp.0000252676.46043.18
OpenAlex
W2122326747
Cited by
1,395
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 103 · 2012: 106
FWCI
98.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
hypertension prevalence, hypertension awareness, antihypertensive therapy, blood pressure control, temporal trends, age differences, racial and ethnic differences, non-Hispanic blacks, Mexican Americans, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aging, Black or African American, Blood Pressure, Female, Goals, Humans, Hypertension, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Nutrition Surveys, United States, Prevalence, Mexican Americans, Black People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review