ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
Impact of resistance training for lowering blood pressure in older adults.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2026. 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.
- Resistance training in older adults: are the gains worth the strain?American journal of preventive cardiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The INERTIA study evaluated the preliminary effects of a 12-week progressive resistance training (PRT) intervention on changes in blood pressure (BP) in older adults. Methods: Older adults (≥60 years) with low muscle strength and no diagnosed CVD were randomized (2:1) to 12 weeks of PRT (n=50) or assessment-only control (n=21). The primary outcome was between-group difference in 12-week changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Secondary outcomes were changes in muscle strength (chest press, leg press), and physical function (short-physical performance battery, SPPB). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA assessed between-group effects (LS mean) and within-group changes. Results: Seventy-one participants (mean (SD); age, 70.1 (6.3) years); 76% female, 43% non-white; 42% on antihypertensive therapy) enrolled, and 61 completed follow-up. Baseline SBP/DBP was 130 (20.2)/82 (12.3) mmHg. Compared with control, PRT produced greater reductions for DBP (difference in change, -4.2 mmHg; 95% CI -8.3, -0.1), but not for SBP (-5.4 mmHg; 95% CI -13.0, 2.2). Within the PRT group, SBP (mean change -5.6 mmHg; 95% CI -11.1, -0.1) and DBP (-3.9 mmHg; 95% CI -6.8, -0.9) decreased significantly, with minimal change in controls. Strength gains (chest press, 11.0 kg; leg press, 63.6 kg) were greater in PRT than controls (all p<0.001), while between-group improvements in SPPB (PRT: 2 points, controls: 1.2 points) were not significant. Conclusion: In older adults, PRT significantly increased muscle strength and reduced DBP beyond controls, with a trend towards clinically meaningful improvements in SBP and physical function. Larger, adequately powered trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.