98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objective: To determine the impact of intermittent high-intensity exercise training ([IHIE], including high-intensity interval training [HIIT] and recreational team sports [RTS]) on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in adults with pre- to established arterial hypertension.
Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and SPORTDiscus.
Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of IHIE on BP versus a non-exercise control.
Data Collection And Analysis: Two authors independently conducted all procedures. Mean differences were calculated using random-effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.
Results: Twenty-seven RCTs (18 HIIT and 9 RTS) were analyzed, with median duration of 12 weeks. Participants' (n = 946) median age was 46 years. Overall, IHIE decreased SBP (-3.29 mmHg; 95% CI: -5.19, -1.39) and DBP (-2.62 mmHg; 95% CI: -3.79, -1.44) compared to the control group. IHIE elicited higher decreases in office SBP and DBP of hypertensive subjects (SBP: -7.13 mmHg, [95% CI: -10.12, -4.15]; DBP: -5.81 mmHg, [95% CI: -7.94, -3.69]) than pre-hypertensive (SBP: -2.14 mmHg, [95% CI: -4.36, -0.08]; DBP: -1.83 mmHg, [95% CI: -2.99, -0.67]). No significant differences were found between HIIT (SBP: -2.12 mmHg, [95% CI: -4.78, -0.54]; DBP: -1.89 mmHg, [95% CI: -3.32, -0.48]) and RTS (SBP: -4.18 mmHg, [95% CI: -7.19, -2.43]; DBP: -4.04 mmHg, [95% CI: -6.00, -2.09]). These findings present low/very low certainty of evidence. No adverse cardiovascular events were reported.
Conclusions: IHIE appears to be safe and to promote substantial decreases in BP, particularly in patients with hypertension. However, the certainty of evidence was low/very low.
Protocol: CRD42020163575.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms.14299 | DOI Listing |
J Nephrol
September 2025
Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Health Psychology Section, King's College London, 5th Floor Bermondsey Wing, Guy's Campus, London Bridge, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Background: Depression and anxiety are common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and worsen clinical outcomes. Psycho-behavioural interventions offer a promising, non-pharmacological approach. However, most evidence comes from people with kidney failure with distinct treatment needs, limiting relevance to earlier stages of CKD, where timely support may enhance self-management and slow progression.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDisabil Rehabil
September 2025
Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Purpose: To summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of manual therapy (MT) and exercise targeted to the neck or jaw and neck (combined) in the management of orofacial pain (OFP).
Material And Methods: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021227490). Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL.
Int J Surg
September 2025
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Metabolic Vascular Diseases Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Remodeling and Dysfunction, Luzhou, Sichuan, PR China.
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis.
Methods: We systematically analyzed studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI comparing TAVR and SAVR in BAV stenosis. Outcomes included postoperative mortality, complications, all-cause survival, and freedom from stroke.
Int J Surg
September 2025
Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Background: Bladder cancer represents a significant global health challenge, characterized by poorly understood risk factors. This study aims to synthesize meta-analytical evidence, quantify risk associations, and inform prevention strategies.
Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to October 2024.
J Eval Clin Pract
September 2025
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Acute and Hospital-Based Care Portfolio, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rationale: Systematic reviews are essential for evidence-based healthcare decision-making. While it is relatively straightforward to quantitatively assess random errors in systematic reviews, as these are typically reported in primary studies, the assessment of biases often remains narrative. Primary studies seldom provide quantitative estimates of biases and their uncertainties, resulting in systematic reviews rarely including such measurements.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF