ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Exercise Hypertension in Athletes.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of reduced sedentary time on resting, exercise and post-exercise blood pressure in inactive adults with metabolic syndrome - a six-month exploratory RCT.Journal of human hypertension · 2024Trial
- Association of aortic root diameter and vascular function with an exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise among elite athletes.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of exercise blood pressure: role of fitness and exercise training.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2026Review
- Associations Between Exercise Blood Pressure Responses and Oxygen Pulse During Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Association of central blood pressure with an exaggerated blood pressure response to exercise among elite athletes.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Article
- Exercise-Induced Blood Pressure Dynamics: Insights from the General Population and the Athletic Cohort.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Hypertensive Heart Disease: A Narrative Review Series-Part 2: Macrostructural and Functional Abnormalities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Former SARS-CoV-2 Infection Was Related to Decreased VODiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Advancements in Sports Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical and Prognostic Value of Exaggerated Blood Pressure Response to Exercise.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) during exercise testing is not well defined, and several blood pressure thresholds are used in different studies and recommended in different guidelines. Methods: Competitive athletes of any age without known arterial hypertension who presented for preparticipation screening were included in the present study and categorized for EBPR according to American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines as well as the systolic blood pressure/MET slope method. Results: Overall, 1137 athletes (mean age 21 years; 34.7% females) without known arterial hypertension were included April 2020−October 2021. Among them, 19.6%, 15.0%, and 6.8% were diagnosed EBPR according to ESC, AHA, and ACSM guidelines, respectively. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was detected in 20.5% of the athletes and was approximately two-fold more frequent in athletes with EBPR than in those without. While EBPR according to AHA (OR 2.35 [95%CI 1.66−3.33], p < 0.001) and ACSM guidelines (OR 1.81 [95%CI 1.05−3.09], p = 0.031) was independently (of age and sex) associated with LVH, EBPR defined according to ESC guidelines (OR 1.49 [95%CI 1.00−2.23], p = 0.051) was not. In adult athletes, only AHA guidelines (OR 1.96 [95%CI 1.32−2.90], p = 0.001) and systolic blood pressure/MET slope method (OR 1.73 [95%CI 1.08−2.78], p = 0.023) were independently predictive for LVH. Conclusions: Diverging guidelines exist for the screening regarding EBPR. In competitive athletes, the prevalence of EBPR was highest when applying the ESC (19.6%) and lowest using the ACSM guidelines (6.8%). An association of EBPR with LVH in adult athletes, independently of age and sex, was only found when the AHA guideline or the systolic blood pressure/MET slope method was applied.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.