| Title |
Exercise Blood Pressure Guidelines: Time to Re-evaluate What is Normal and Exaggerated?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-018-0900-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katharine D. Currie, John S. Floras, Andre La Gerche, Jack M. Goodman |
| Abstract |
Blood pressure responses to graded exercise testing can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information. While published guidelines outline what constitutes a "normal" and "abnormal" (i.e., exaggerated) blood pressure response to exercise testing, the widespread use of exaggerated blood pressure responses as a clinical tool is limited due to sparse and inconsistent data. A review of the original sources from these guidelines reveals an overall lack of empirical evidence to support both the normal blood pressure responses and their upper limits. In this current opinion, we critically evaluate the current exercise blood pressure guidelines including (1) the normal blood pressure responses to graded exercise testing; (2) the upper limits of this normal response; (3) the blood pressure criteria for test termination; and (4) the thresholds for exaggerated blood pressure responses. We provide evidence that exercise blood pressure responses vary according to subject characteristics, and subsequently a re-evaluation of what constitutes normal and abnormal responses is necessary to strengthen the clinical utility of this assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 17% |
| United States | 4 | 17% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Saint Lucia | 1 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 50% |
| Scientists | 9 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 20 | 25% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 25% |
| Sports and Recreations | 17 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,263,211
of 24,225,722 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,444
of 2,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,511
of 334,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#41
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,225,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,807 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.