Reliability of blood pressure responses used to define an exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise in young healthy adults
Abstract
Exaggerated blood pressure (BP) responses (EBPR) to exercise are prognostic of future cardiovascular risk. The primary objective of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of BP responses used to categorize EBPR as absent or present. Twenty-seven healthy adults [21(2) years; 12 males] with resting BP < 130/80 mmHg completed a modified Bruce protocol treadmill exercise test on two visits separated by 6 (3) days. BP measurements were obtained during exercise using an automated auscultatory device. Submaximal and maximal systolic and diastolic BP, the change in diastolic BP from rest to maximal diastolic BP, and the change in systolic BP relative to the change in exercise intensity, quantified using the metabolic equivalent of task (SBP/MET-slope) were determined. Test-retest reliability of these BP responses was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with a value ≥0.61 considered as substantial reliability. Submaximal diastolic BP demonstrated substantial reliability in the total group (ICC = 0.670; P ≤ 0.001). In males, submaximal systolic BP (ICC = 0.655, P < 0.01), submaximal diastolic BP (ICC = 0.699; P < 0.01) and maximal systolic BP (ICC = 0.794; P ≤ 0.001) demonstrated substantial reliability. All other BP responses were not reliable. Despite the prognostic value of EBPR, only three BP responses used to categorize EBPR demonstrated substantial test-retest reliability in healthy young males. In clinical practice, these preliminary findings would support the use of exercise BPs to identify young males with elevated cardiovascular risk, but additional research is needed to improve the clinical utility of exercise BPs and EBPR in females.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Some studies have found substantial test-retest reliability of EEBP classification during early exercise testing stages.
“Some studies have also found substantial test-retest reliability of EEBP classification during early exercise testing stages [45], further enhancing clinical applicability.”
From The Identification and Management of High Blood Pressure Using Exercise Blood Pressure: Current Evidence and Practical Guidance (2022) · cites this paper as [45]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 32 · Cited by 11
- Authors
- Currie, K. D., Soave, K. M., & Slade, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Currie, Katharine D.
- ORCID
- Currie, Katharine D.
- Venue
- Journal of Human Hypertension
- Published
- 2021-10-12
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-61
- ISSN
- 0950-9240 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-5527
- OpenAlex
- W3206751649
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 1.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Human Hypertension (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Michigan State University - College of Education Seed Grant
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- exaggerated blood pressure response, blood pressure response to exercise, test-retest reliability, cardiovascular risk, treadmill exercise testing, Bruce protocol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, metabolic equivalent of task, healthy young adults, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Male, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise
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