Skip left side navigation and go to content
In response to the request of the NHBPEP Chair and Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) regarding the need to update the JNC 7 report,2 some NHBPEP Coordinating Committee members suggested that the NHBPEP Working Group Report on Hypertension in Children and Adolescents should be revisited. Thereafter, the NHLBI Director directed the NHLBI staff to examine issues that might warrant a new report on children. Several prominent clinicians and scholars were asked to develop background manuscripts on selected issues related to hypertension in children and adolescents. Their manuscripts synthesized the available scientific evidence. During the spring and summer of 2002, NHLBI staff and the chair of the 1996 NHBPEP Working Group report on hypertension in children and adolescents reviewed the scientific issues addressed in the background manuscripts as well as contemporary policy issues. Subsequently, the staff noted that a critical mass of new information had been identified, thus warranting the appointment of a panel to update the earlier NHBPEP Working Group Report. The NHLBI Director appointed the authors of the background papers and other national experts to serve on the new panel. The chair and NHLBI staff developed a report outline and timeline to complete the work in 5 months.
The background papers served as focal points for review of the scientific evidence at the first meeting. The members of the Working Group were assembled into teams, and each team prepared specific sections of the report. In developing the focus of each section, the Working Group was asked to consider the peer-reviewed scientific literature published in English since 1997. The scientific evidence was classified by the system used in the JNC 7.2 The chair assembled the sections submitted by each team into the first draft of the report. The draft report was distributed to the Working Group for review and comment. These comments were assembled and used to create the second draft. A subsequent onsite meeting of the Working Group was conducted to discuss further revisions and the development of the third draft document. Amended sections were reviewed, critiqued, and incorporated into the third draft. After editing by the chair for internal consistency, the fourth draft was created. The Working Group reviewed this draft, and conference calls were conducted to resolve any remaining issues that were identified. When the Working Group approved the final document, it was distributed to the Coordinating Committee for review.Back to Top