Using an EMR to assess pediatric blood pressure: Challenges and opportunities in a nephrology cohort

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Background Hypertension is a prevalent condition in the pediatric population. Diagnosis and management can be challenging due to difficulties with accurate measurement techniques and complex diagnostic criteria. The widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) has revealed their potential for improving patient care and research. This study aims to assess the clinical utility of using EMR data to enhance the identification and evaluation of children with hypertension. Objectives The primary objectives of this research project were to utilize the EMR to extract anthropometric, demographic, and blood pressure-related data from patients seen in the nephrology clinic as well as describe and evaluate trends in hypertension assessment and treatment while also identifying areas for improvement. Design We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study using EMR data. Setting Children who had their initial visit at the nephrology clinic between January 1st, 2018, and January 1st, 2022, were included in the cohort. Methods Outpatients were identified using ICD-10 codes related to nephrology diseases. The EMR was reviewed to extract anthropometric, biochemical, and blood pressure data. A blood pressure (BP) index was calculated using systolic and diastolic BP values and the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hypertension guidelines. The primary analysis categorized BP phenotypes. A secondary analysis using EMR and chart review, assessed whether elevated BP was appropriately managed, including scheduling follow-up visits, diagnosing white-coat hypertension, or initiating pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. Results A total of 1,469 children aged 1–18 (median age 9.8 years) were newly referred to the nephrology clinic with complete data for BP index calculation. Many children were initially diagnosed as hypertensive, but across multiple visits were normotensive. Despite being hypertensive across multiple visits, we observed that many children had missing data following EMR extraction (∼20%). Furthermore, despite meeting criteria at visit one for hypertension, many children did not have follow up visits (∼20-30%). We identified that those children presenting with isolated elevated diastolic blood pressure elevations were more likely to have fewer BP measurements and were less likely to have BP-related follow up, likely reflecting the perceived benign nature of this phenomenon. Limitations This study’s retrospective, non-randomized design limits generalizability. Conclusions This study underscores the challenges in studying pediatric hypertension using an EMR, particularly highlighting missing values and decreased measurements as problematic.
Full text 4,470 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 6 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Background Hypertension is a prevalent condition in the pediatric population. Diagnosis and management can be challenging due to difficulties with accurate measurement techniques and complex diagnostic criteria. The widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) has revealed their potential for improving patient care and research. This study aims to assess the clinical utility of using EMR data to enhance the identification and evaluation of children with hypertension.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this research project were to utilize the EMR to extract anthropometric, demographic, and blood pressure-related data from patients seen in the nephrology clinic as well as describe and evaluate trends in hypertension assessment and treatment while also identifying areas for improvement. Design We performed a single center, retrospective cohort study using EMR data. Setting Children who had their initial visit at the nephrology clinic between January 1st, 2018, and January 1st, 2022, were included in the cohort.

Methods

Outpatients were identified using ICD-10 codes related to nephrology diseases. The EMR was reviewed to extract anthropometric, biochemical, and blood pressure data. A blood pressure (BP) index was calculated using systolic and diastolic BP values and the 2017 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hypertension guidelines. The primary analysis categorized BP phenotypes. A secondary analysis using EMR and chart review, assessed whether elevated BP was appropriately managed, including scheduling follow-up visits, diagnosing white-coat hypertension, or initiating pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.

Results

A total of 1,469 children aged 1–18 (median age 9.8 years) were newly referred to the nephrology clinic with complete data for BP index calculation. Many children were initially diagnosed as hypertensive, but across multiple visits were normotensive. Despite being hypertensive across multiple visits, we observed that many children had missing data following EMR extraction (∼20%). Furthermore, despite meeting criteria at visit one for hypertension, many children did not have follow up visits (∼20-30%). We identified that those children presenting with isolated elevated diastolic blood pressure elevations were more likely to have fewer BP measurements and were less likely to have BP-related follow up, likely reflecting the perceived benign nature of this phenomenon.

Limitations

This study’s retrospective, non-randomized design limits generalizability.

Conclusions

This study underscores the challenges in studying pediatric hypertension using an EMR, particularly highlighting missing values and decreased measurements as problematic. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this work. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The CHEO Research Ethics Board (REB) gave ethical approval for this work (REB#22/128X); however, the need for consent was waived given the retrospective nature of this study. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Data availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00