Randomised controlled effectiveness study (RCT) of isometric exercise (IE) in adults with stage 1 and 2 hypertension – ISOFITTER study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background High blood pressure (BP) affects more than one in four adults in England and only one in three patients are being treated effectively. Treatment of high BP includes changes to lifestyle such as more physical activity and/or taking medication. However, low adoption and high attrition rates are common with current large targets for recommended exercise (>150 minutes moderate exercise per week plus 2 strength sessions). Evidence suggests that isometric exercise (IE), holding a fixed body position for a period of time, for example a wall squat, lowers BP a greater amount, with less time and effort, than other recommended exercise. This ISOFITTER study will provide robust effectiveness evidence of IE for hypertension. Methods A multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial of isometric exercise wall squat intervention for hypertension: an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type-1 design. Adults (n=542) with Stage 1 or Stage 2 hypertension, on no more than one antihypertensive, and no other medical contra-indications will be randomised to either a standard care plus IE intervention group or standard care control group. Blood pressure readings, fidelity measurements, medications, adverse events, quality of life, participant satisfaction and health service use will be collected at baseline, week 4, month 3 and month 6 with a subgroup of n=50 invited up to month 12. Qualitative participant focus groups and interviews with wider stakeholders will collect implementation data. Results The ISOFITTER study will establish effectiveness of a self-administered, home IE intervention in lowering blood pressure in people with uncomplicated stage 1 and 2 hypertension. Implementation evidence will support patient delivery, context for scaling up of the intervention and intervention cost. Conclusion Lifestyle changes for the treatment of hypertension in the absence of other risk factors should not be overlooked. For long term hypertension management, easily adopted, evidenced exercise interventions are needed. This study will help to address this evidence gap.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".