Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27803621›Full record

ArticleJournal of sports science & medicine2016

Mean Blood Pressure Assessment during Post-Exercise: Result from Two Different Methods of Calculation.

Gianmarco Sainas, Raffaele Milia, Girolamo Palazzolo, Gianfranco Ibba, Elisabetta Marongiu, Silvana Roberto, Virginia Pinna, Giovanna Ghiani, Filippo Tocco, Antonio Crisafulli

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Intelligent Neonatal Blood Perfusion Assessment System Based on Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The effect of N95 respirators on vital parameters, PETCOIrish journal of medical science · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gianmarco SainasDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Raffaele MiliaDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Girolamo PalazzoloDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Gianfranco IbbaDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Elisabetta MarongiuDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Silvana RobertoDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Virginia PinnaDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Giovanna GhianiDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Filippo ToccoDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
Antonio CrisafulliDepartment of Medical Sciences, Sports Physiology Lab., University of Cagliari , Italy.
University of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At rest the proportion between systolic and diastolic periods of the cardiac cycle is about 1/3 and 2/3 respectively. Therefore, mean blood pressure (MBP) is usually calculated with a standard formula (SF) as follows: MBP = diastolic blood pressure (DBP) + 1/3 [systolic blood pressure (SBP) - DBP]. However, during exercise this proportion is lost because of tachycardia, which shortens diastole more than systole. We analysed the difference in MBP calculation between the SF and a corrected formula (CF) which takes into account changes in the diastolic and systolic periods caused by exercise-induced tachycardia. Our hypothesis was that the SF potentially induce a systematic error in MBP assessment during recovery after exercise. Ten healthy males underwent two exercise-recovery tests on a cycle-ergometer at mild-moderate and moderate-heavy workloads. Hemodynamics and MBP were monitored for 30 minutes after exercise bouts. The main result was that the SF on average underestimated MBP by -4.1 mmHg with respect to the CF. Moreover, in the period immediately after exercise, when sustained tachycardia occurred, the difference between SF and CF was large (in the order of -20-30 mmHg). Likewise, a systematic error in systemic vascular resistance assessment was present. It was concluded that the SF introduces a substantial error in MBP estimation in the period immediately following effort. This equation should not be used in this situation.

Indexed as

cardiac outputcontractilityexerciserecoverystroke volume

Identifiers

PMID27803621
PMCPMC4974855
OpenAlexW2547409263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.