Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dynamic Resistance Training as Stand‐Alone Antihypertensive Lifestyle Therapy: A Meta‐Analysis

Open access
MacDonald, Hayley V., Johnson, Blair T., Huedo‐Medina, Tania B., Livingston, Jill, Forsyth, Kym C., Kraemer, William J., Farinatti, Paulo T.V., Pescatello, Linda S.·2016·Journal of the American Heart Association
DOI 10.1161/jaha.116.003231
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Aerobic exercise ( AE ) is recommended as first‐line antihypertensive lifestyle therapy based on strong evidence showing that it lowers blood pressure ( BP ) 5 to 7 mm Hg among adults with hypertension. Because of weaker evidence showing that dynamic resistance training ( RT ) reduces BP 2 to 3 mm Hg among adults with hypertension, it is recommended as adjuvant lifestyle therapy to AE training. Yet, existing evidence suggests that dynamic RT can lower BP as much or more than AE . Methods and Results: We meta‐analyzed 64 controlled studies (71 interventions) to determine the efficacy of dynamic RT as stand‐alone antihypertensive therapy. Participants (N=2344) were white (57%), middle‐aged (47.2±19.0 years), and overweight (26.8±3.4 kg/m 2 ) adults with prehypertension (126.7±10.3/76.8±8.7 mm Hg); 15% were on antihypertensive medication. Overall, moderate‐intensity dynamic RT was performed 2.8±0.6 days/week for 14.4±7.9 weeks and elicited small‐to‐moderate reductions in systolic BP ( SBP ; d + =−0.31; 95% CI s, −0.43, −0.19; −3.0 mm Hg) and diastolic BP ( DBP ; d + =−0.30; 95% CI s, −0.38, −0.18; −2.1 mm Hg) compared to controls ( P s<0.001). Greater BP reductions occurred among samples with higher resting SBP / DBP : ≈6/5 mm Hg for hypertension, ≈3/3 mm Hg for prehypertension, and ≈0/1 mm Hg for normal BP ( P s<0.023). Furthermore, nonwhite samples with hypertension experienced BP reductions that were approximately twice the magnitude of those previously reported following AE training (−14.3 mm Hg [95% CI s, −19.0, −9.4]/−10.3 mm Hg [95% CI s, −14.5, −6.2]). Conclusions: Our results indicate that for nonwhite adult samples with hypertension, dynamic RT may elicit BP reductions that are comparable to or greater than those reportedly achieved with AE training. Dynamic RT should be further investigated as a viable stand‐alone therapeutic exercise option for adult populations with high BP .

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/jaha.116.003231

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 273

Metadata

Authors
MacDonald, H. V., Johnson, B. T., Huedo‐Medina, T. B., Livingston, J., Forsyth, K. C., Kraemer, W. J., Farinatti, P. T. V., & Pescatello, L. S.
Venue
Journal of the American Heart Association
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2016-10-03
Volume
5
Issue
10
ISSN
2047-9980 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1161/jaha.116.003231
OpenAlex
W2526414743
Cited by
273
References
32
FWCI
14.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.