Are the Foundational Guidelines Endorsing Isometric Resistance Training (IRT) as a Blood Pressure-Lowering Intervention Being Cited Within the IRT Literature? A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isometric resistance training is endorsed in global blood pressure management guidelines, but not yet routinely prescribed in clinical practice. A lack of health care provider awareness of its recommendation by governing bodies may be a contributing factor. Citing the guidelines within the isometric resistance training scientific literature is an important step in promoting its prescription. This scoping review quantified the extent to which guidelines put forth by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and Exercise and Sport Science Australia, two of the most descriptive guidelines endorsing isometric resistance training as a blood pressure-lowering tool, were cited. Searches were conducted in OVID Medline, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health. Eligible sources were those published in English between November 2017 and December 2023, which referred to the use of isometric resistance training for hypertension prevention and/or management and cited at least one guideline. Extracted data was tabulated and frequency counts performed. Forty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria, 16% of which cited the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, and 3% the Exercise and Sport Science Australia guidelines. Less than 50% of the identified sources linked isometric resistance training overtly to the guidelines. Increasing awareness by citing these guidelines within the IRT scientific literature may help promote its use by health care providers.
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 | 0.054 | 0.349 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".