ArticleJournal of human hypertension2025
Sex differences in systolic blood pressure response to exercise testing: a real-world clinical analysis.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants and prognostic value of blood pressure trajectories during graded exercise.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- A decomposition of Fisher's information to inform sample size for developing or updating fair and precise clinical prediction models - part 3: continuous outcomes.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The American Heart Association recommends sex-specific thresholds for defining exaggerated systolic blood pressure response to exercise (ESBPR), primarily based on data from young healthy populations. However, their applicability and the sex differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) response to exercise in real-world clinical settings remain unclear. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 44 418 adults (40.6% female) with a mean age of 49, who underwent treadmill exercise testing at Fuwai Hospital from 2016-2022. ESBPR was defined as peak SBP during exercise ≥ 210 mmHg for males and ≥ 190 mmHg for females. Multivariate regression models stratified by sex were used to explore whether sex modifies age-related patterns in SBP response to exercise. ESBPR was over five times more prevalent in females than males (10.1 vs. 1.9%, P < 0.001). While the mean, 90th, and 95th percentiles of peak SBP were at least 12 mmHg higher in males than females in younger age groups (18-44), the gap narrowed to less than 4 mmHg in older age groups (≥45). Stratified multivariate analysis revealed that age was a strong predictor of ESBPR in females but not in males. Using age ≥ 51 as a proxy for menopause, females older than 51 had significantly higher odds of ESBPR compared to younger females (adjusted OR: 1.904, 95% CI: 1.683-2.155, P < 0.001). Our findings reveal that females and males display distinct age-related patterns in SBP response to exercise. The lower threshold for females may disproportionately classify postmenopausal females as abnormal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40588508What 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.