I wish to provide some clarifications of our manuscript entitled, “Budding adult hypertensives with modifiable risk factors: Catch them young.” First of all, I wish to thank the critical reviewer for the comments on our paper. Our study followed the random sampling method, in which we included a total of 3906 children from 8 public and 5 private schools. The survey ran from August 2012 to April 2014 during 17 different periods of time. We fixed our blood pressure (BP) check post 2–3 min after the children had assembled at the checking point following such activities as sports and running play. We believed this would have given the children ample time to calm down from their excitement. BP was measured thrice to avoid any manual error. We invariably used different time points to minimize the errors and avoid any discrepancy in the data. We accept and apologize for the typological error in Table 3 pointed out by the reviewer, and we are indeed grateful. The reviewer raised some issues regarding the “prehypertension,” which also poses a risk for developing hypertension. Since there were limitations to some of our study requirements, we could not include this in the present study because of the amount of time required to analyze these parameters. Regular visits and frequent follow-ups would have been necessary. The suggestion is well taken and will be considered in a future study. In our study, there was a wide difference in diastolic BP between boys and girls. We believe this is an interesting point, and we shall try to gather some baseline evidence. A controlled study should help. To calculate the weight, the International Obesity Task Force standards for calculating obesity in children were employed. We also applied the NHS physical activity guidelines (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-activity-guidelines-for-young-people.aspx) in the study.
We used all types of parameters (lean, obese, and overtype) in selecting the participants for the study. However, since the participants were randomly selected, the numbers for the groups were not identical. There was no special focus on any specific group since no major impact was expected on any group. Anyway, these parameters will definitely be considered in any major future study.© 2017 Journal of Family and Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer – Medknow