↓ Skip to main content

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training On Blood Pressure in Adults with Pre- to Established Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of…

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
42 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
185 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
505 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training On Blood Pressure in Adults with Pre- to Established Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
Published in
Sports Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0944-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Caldas Costa, Jacqueline L. Hay, Dustin S. Kehler, Kevin F. Boreskie, Rakesh C. Arora, Daniel Umpierre, Andrea Szwajcer, Todd A. Duhamel

Abstract

Aerobic exercise reduces blood pressure (BP), but it is unknown whether a high-intensity training approach can elicit a greater BP reduction in populations with elevated BP. This systematic review compared the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for reducing BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized trials comparing the chronic effects of HIIT versus MICT on BP in individuals with resting systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mmHg and/or under antihypertensive medication. Random-effects modelling was used to compare changes from pre- to post-intervention in resting and ambulatory BP between HIIT and MICT. Changes from pre- to post-intervention in maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) between HIIT and MICT were also meta-analyzed. Data were reported as weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Ambulatory BP was excluded from the meta-analysis due to the limited number of studies (two studies). Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, no differences in resting systolic BP (MD - 0.22 mmHg [CI 95%, - 5.36 to 4.92], p = 0.93, I2 = 53%) and diastolic BP (MD - 0.38 mmHg [CI 95%, - 3.31 to 2.54], p = 0.74, I2 = 0%) were found between HIIT and MICT (seven studies; 164 participants). HIIT improved [Formula: see text]O2max to a greater magnitude than MICT (MD 2.13 ml/kg/min [CI 95%, 1.00 to 3.27], p < 0.01, I2 = 41%) with similar completion rates of the intervention and attendance at the exercise training sessions (nine studies; 245 participants). Limited data were available to compare the incidence of adverse events between HIIT and MICT. HIIT and MICT provided comparable reductions in resting BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. HIIT was associated with greater improvements in [Formula: see text]O2max when compared to MICT. Future randomized trials should investigate the efficacy of HIIT versus MICT for reducing ambulatory BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. PROSPERO registration (2016: CRD42016041885).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 505 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 505 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 72 14%
Student > Master 62 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 7%
Researcher 29 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 5%
Other 109 22%
Unknown 169 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 103 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 62 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 3%
Unspecified 10 2%
Other 53 10%
Unknown 201 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#952,254
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#840
of 2,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,616
of 341,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#16
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,879 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 341,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.