Sodium intake and blood pressure in children with clinical conditions: A systematic review with meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known on the effect of sodium intake on BP of children with clinical conditions. Our objective was therefore to review systematically studies that have assessed the association between sodium intake and BP in children with various clinical conditions. A systematic search of several databases was conducted and supplemented by a manual search of bibliographies and unpublished studies. Experimental and observational studies assessing the association between sodium intake and BP and involving children or adolescents between 0 and 18 years of age with any clinical condition were included. Out of the 6861 records identified, 51 full texts were reviewed, and 16 studies (10 experimental and 6 observational), involving overall 2902 children and adolescents, were included. Ten studies were conducted in children with elevated BP without identifiable cause, two in children with familial hypertension, one in children with at least one cardiovascular risk factor, one in children with chronic renal insufficiency, one in children with urolithiasis, and one in premature infants. A positive association between sodium intake and BP was found in all studies, except one. The meta-analysis of six studies among children with elevated BP without identifiable cause revealed a difference of 6.3 mm Hg (95% CI 2.9-9.6) and 3.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.2-5.7) in systolic and diastolic BP, respectively, for every additional gram of sodium intake per day. In conclusion, our results indicate that the BP response to salt is greater in children with clinical conditions, mainly hypertension, than in those without associated clinical conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".