4.7 Article

Effects of different types of exercise on hypertension in middle-aged and older adults: a network meta-analysis

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1194124

Keywords

hypertension; aerobics; static exercise; middle-aged and older adults; types of exercise

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study used network meta-analysis to explore the effect of different types of exercise on hypertension in middle-aged and older adults. The results showed that aerobic exercise and static exercise have a significant effect on the improvement of systolic blood pressure, but the effect on diastolic blood pressure is not significant.
Objective This study mainly used network meta-analysis to explore the effect of different types of exercise on hypertension in middle-aged and older adults.Methods Several databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were used to search for randomized controlled trials on the effects of different types of exercise on hypertension in middle-aged and older adults.Results A total of 19 articles and 2,385 participants were included in the analysis. Aerobic exercise interventions [MD = -9.254, P < 0.05, 95% CI (-14.810, -3.698)] and static exercise interventions [MD = -10.465, P < 0.05, 95% CI (-18.135, -2.794)] had a significant effect on the improvement in systolic blood pressure (SBP). For diastolic blood pressure (DBP), aerobic exercise interventions [MD = -1.4096; P > 0.05, 95% CI (-8.2395, 5.4201)] and static exercise interventions [MD = -4.5206, P > 0.05, 95% CI (-14.0436, 5.0023)] were not statistically significant. The results of the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) showed that static exercise improved hypertension better than aerobic exercise.Conclusion Aerobic exercise and static exercise have been shown to have a good effect on the improvement of hypertension, but the effect on DBP is not significant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available