ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2025
Sex-based comparison of the blood pressure, haemodynamic and cardiac autonomic adaptations following isometric exercise training in sedentary adults: a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Isometric exercise training and blood pressure control: exploring the dose-response to training frequency in a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to explore sex-specific differences in resting blood pressure (BP) reduction and associated cardiovascular adaptations following isometric exercise training (IET). Methods: 100 sedentary adults with normal to high-normal systolic BP volunteered for the study. Participants either performed home-based lower-body IET in the form of a wall squat three times a week for 4 weeks (each session comprised 4×2 min bouts) or were allocated to the control group. Cardiovascular variables, including BP, cardiac output, total peripheral resistance, stroke volume and heart rate variability (HRV), were measured at rest preintervention and postintervention. Results: Following 4 weeks of IET, there were no significant differences in resting systolic BP and diastolic BP between females (122.1±6.9 and 80.0±8.3 mm Hg) and males (119.6±7.2 and 77.4±8.6 mm Hg). However, female participants had a greater cardiac autonomic response following training, evidenced by a lower low-frequency to high-frequency HRV ratio (F: 1.38±1.27 and M: 2.1±1.5, p=0.004) and decreased and elevated low-frequency normalised units (F: 50.3%±16.2% and M: 60.9%±16.9%, p=0.015) and high-frequency normalised units (F: 49.7%±16.2% and M: 39.1%±16.9%, p=0.015), respectively. Conclusions: While resting BP reductions were comparable between female and male participants, there was a greater autonomic response and a higher incidence of clinically important BP reductions in females, which could indicate a greater cardioprotective effect following IET. These findings highlight the importance of considering sex differences in the prescription and evaluation of exercise interventions for hypertension management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.