Cited by 1,391Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesSodium Intake and HealthCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Influence of Weight Reduction on Blood Pressure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Neter, Judith E., Stam, Bianca E., Kok, Frans J., Grobbee, Diederick E., Geleijnse, Johanna M.·2003·Hypertension

Abstract

Increased body weight is a strong risk factor for hypertension. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to estimate the effect of weight reduction on blood pressure overall and in population subgroups. Twenty-five randomized, controlled trials (comprising 34 strata) published between 1966 and 2002 with a total of 4874 participants were included. A random-effects model was used to account for heterogeneity among trials. A net weight reduction of −5.1 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], −6.03 to −4.25) by means of energy restriction, increased physical activity, or both reduced systolic blood pressure by −4.44 mm Hg (95% CI, −5.93 to −2.95) and diastolic blood pressure by −3.57 mm Hg (95% CI, −4.88 to −2.25). Blood pressure reductions were −1.05 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.43 to −0.66) systolic and −0.92 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.28 to −0.55) diastolic when expressed per kilogram of weight loss. As expected, significantly larger blood pressure reductions were observed in populations with an average weight loss >5 kg than in populations with less weight loss, both for systolic (−6.63 mm Hg [95% CI, −8.43 to −4.82] vs −2.70 mm Hg [95% CI, −4.59 to −0.81]) and diastolic (−5.12 mm Hg [95% CI, −6.48 to −3.75] vs −2.01 mm Hg [95% CI, −3.47 to −0.54]) blood pressure. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was significantly larger in populations taking antihypertensive drugs than in untreated populations (−5.31 mm Hg [95% CI, −6.64 to −3.99] vs −2.91 mm Hg [95% CI, −3.66 to −2.16]). This meta-analysis clearly shows that weight loss is important for the prevention and treatment of hypertension.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.hyp.0000094221.86888.ae

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neter, J. E., Stam, B. E., Kok, F. J., Grobbee, D. E., & Geleijnse, J. M.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2003-11
Volume
42
Issue
5
Pages
878-884
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2148897749
Cited by
1,391
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 56 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 80
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
weight loss, blood pressure, caloric restriction, physical activity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, antihypertensive drugs, obesity
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Humans, Hypertension, Weight Loss, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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