SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Effects of dynamic resistance training on blood pressure across different baseline levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of dynamic resistance training (DRT) on populations with varying baseline blood pressure (BP) levels, compare the commonalities and differences across subgroups, and explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Methods: A systematic literature search of databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DRT as the intervention and resting BP as the outcome were included. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the pooled mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed based on baseline BP classifications and antihypertensive medication status, while meta-regression was used to assess the moderating effect of age. The Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Results: Eighteen studies were ultimately included in this meta-analysis. For systolic blood pressure (SBP), 18 studies comprising 27 effect sizes and 328 participants were pooled, revealing a significant reduction following DRT (MD = -7.57 mmHg; 95% CI: [-9.40, -5.74]; Conclusions: DRT significantly lowers BP in adults, with the magnitude of reduction varying across different baseline levels, generally demonstrating a trend where higher baseline BP yields greater antihypertensive benefits. DRT can be prioritized as a non-pharmacological intervention for patients with stage 2 hypertension. However, given the current limited certainty of evidence and high inter-study heterogeneity, these findings warrant further verification through high-quality RCTs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, PROSPERO CRD420261332947.
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.