Differential effects of exercise training protocols on blood pressures and lipid profiles in older adults patients with hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decreased physical activity and high blood pressure are both risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Controlling blood pressure within the normal range can prevent or delay these complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed the effects of different types of exercise training on the blood pressure and lipid profiles of older adults patients with hypertension. Five electronic databases (Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus) were searched from their inception until March 03, 2024. English publications and randomized controlled trials involving different types of exercise training treatments for hypertensive populations were included. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model to estimate weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95 % confidence intervals. The systematic search identified 1998 articles, of which 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and were deemed eligible for inclusion. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that reduced systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP) after aerobic training (p < 0.01), resistance training (p < 0.01), combined (aerobic + resistance) exercise training (p < 0.01) and isometric handgrip training (p < 0.01). Significant reductions were also observed in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and triglyceride (TG) levels following combined (aerobic + resistance) exercise training (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001), and resistance training (p < 0.01), respectively. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were increased following aerobic training (p < 0.01), and combined (aerobic + resistance) exercise training (p < 0.01), but not after resistance and Tai chi training. Isometric handgrip training leads to greater reductions in blood pressure in hypertensive patients compared to the effects of aerobic, resistance, combined aerobic and resistance exercise, and tai chi training. Additional studies are needed to determine the exercise prescription protocols to maximize the health of older adults patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".