4.5 Article

Reducing effect of aerobic exercise on blood pressure of essential hypertensive patients: A meta-analysis

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 96, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006150

Keywords

aerobic exercise; diastolic blood pressure; essential hypertension; meta-analysis; systolic blood pressure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The comprehensive meta-analysis aimed to explore the reductive effect of aerobic exercise on blood pressure of hypertensive patients. Methods: The related researches were selected from PubMed and Embase databases up to June 2016. Based on specific inclusive criteria, the eligible studies were selected, and the heterogeneities in their results were estimated by x(2)-based Q-test and I-2 statistics. Quantitative meta-analysis was assessed by R 3.12 software, and results were presented by standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcome indicators were systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The publication biases were estimated by Egger test. Besides, the leave one out method was used for sensitivity evaluations. Results: As a result, a total of 13 papers with 802 samples were included. Based on the meta-analysis results, there were no significant differences in SBP and DBP between aerobic and control groups before exercise (SMD= 0.15, 95% CI: -0.16- 0.46; SMD= 0.16, 95% CI: -0.23-0.55). However, significant reductions were obviously in aerobic group after aerobics, compared with control ( SMD= -0.79, 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.28; SMD= -0.63, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.12). A significant publication bias was detected in SBP ( t=-2.2314, P= 0.04549) but not in DBP ( t=-1.4962, P= 0.1604). Additionally, the DBP result would be altered after the exclusion of 2 individual papers. Conclusion: Aerobic exercise may be a potential nonpharmacological treatment for blood pressure improvement in essential hypertensive patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available