Cited by 24Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesCardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and Health

Assessing cutoff values for increased exercise blood pressure to predict incident hypertension in a general population

Lorbeer, Roberto, Ittermann, Till, Völzke, Henry, Gläser, Sven, Ewert, Ralf, Felix, Stephan B., Dörr, Marcus·2015·Journal of Hypertension

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Cutoff values for increased exercise blood pressure (BP) are not established in hypertension guidelines. The aim of the study was to assess optimal cutoff values for increased exercise BP to predict incident hypertension. METHODS: Data of 661 normotensive participants (386 women) aged 25-77 years from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP-1) with a 5-year follow-up were used. Exercise BP was measured at a submaximal level of 100 W and at maximum level of a symptom-limited cycle ergometry test. Cutoff values for increased exercise BP were defined at the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of incident hypertension. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and net reclassification index (NRI) were calculated to investigate whether increased exercise BP adds predictive value for incident hypertension beyond established cardiovascular risk factors. RESULTS: In men, values of 160 mmHg (100 W level; AUC = 0.7837; NRI = 0.534, P < 0.001) and 210 mmHg (maximum level; AUC = 0.7677; NRI = 0.340, P = 0.003) were detected as optimal cutoff values for the definition of increased exercise SBP. A value of 190 mmHg (AUC = 0.8347; NRI = 0.519, P < 0.001) showed relevance for the definition of increased exercise SBP in women at the maximum level. CONCLUSION: According to our analyses, 190 and 210 mmHg are clinically relevant cutoff values for increased exercise SBP at the maximum exercise level of cycle ergometry test for women and men, respectively. In addition, for men, our analyses provided a cutoff value of 160 mmHg for increased exercise SBP at the 100 W level.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/hjh.0000000000000568

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lorbeer, R., Ittermann, T., Völzke, H., Gläser, S., Ewert, R., Felix, S. B., & Dörr, M.
Affiliations
  • Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
  • German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DE)
Corresponding author
Lorbeer, Roberto
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
2015-07
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
1386-1393
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055847571
Cited by
24
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
blood pressure response to exercise, cut-off values, hypertension incidence, hypertension risk prediction, cycle ergometry, submaximal exercise, systolic blood pressure, sex differences, cardiovascular risk factors, net reclassification improvement, Study of Health in Pomerania
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Pressure, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, 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