Repeated administration of inorganic nitrate on blood pressure and arterial stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to synthesize effects of repeated administration (≥3 days) of inorganic nitrate on blood pressure and arterial stiffness measures. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least 3 days treatment of inorganic nitrate on blood pressure and arterial stiffness in individuals with or without elevated cardiovascular disease risk. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched through 2 July 2019. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant study data. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method with random-effects model, and expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Certainty in the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Forty-seven trials were included (n = 1101). Administration of inorganic nitrate significantly lowered SBP [mean difference: -2.91 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -3.92 to -1.89, I = 76%], DBP (mean difference: -1.45 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.22 to -0.68, I = 78%], central SBP (mean difference: -1.56 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.62 to -0.50, I = 30%) and central DBP (mean difference: -1.99 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.37 to -1.60, I = 0%). There was no effect on 24-h blood pressure, augmentation index or pulse wave velocity. Certainty in the evidence was graded moderate for central blood pressure, pulse wave velocity and low for peripheral blood pressure, 24-h blood pressure and augmentation index. CONCLUSION: Repeated administration (≥3 days) of inorganic nitrate lower peripheral and central blood pressure. Results appear to be driven by beneficial effects in healthy and hypertensive individuals. More studies are required to increase certainty in the evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".