ReviewCureus2026
Effects of Mixed Aerobic, Resistance, and Combined Training on Blood Pressure in Elderly Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
Aerobic (AT) and resistance training (RT) are well established as effective strategies for lowering blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension; however, evidence on the impact of combined training (CT; AT and RT) on BP remains limited. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of AT, RT, and CT for reducing BP in older adults with pre-existing or established hypertension. Five electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and CINAHL) were systematically searched to identify RCTs reporting the effects of AT, RT, and CT on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RCTs published in English, involving hypertensive older adults and available in peer-reviewed journals as of December 2024, were included. A random-effects model was used for the analysis, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Nineteen trials were included, totaling 1,253 participants. SBP was reduced following CT (-4.12 (-6.41 to -1.83; p = 0.0004; I² = 94%), AT (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.93 (-5.27 to 1.40); p = 0.06; I² = 96%), and RT (SMD = -2.39 (-2.85 to -1.92); p < 0.00001; I² = 27%). DBP was also reduced following CT (SMD = -4.53 (-6.67 to -2.39); p < 0.0001; I² = 95%), AT (SMD = -0.50 (-3.62 to 2.63); p = 0.04; I² = 8%), and RT (SMD = -0.48 (-1.56 to 0.61); p = 0.05; I² = 39%). Compared with AT and RT as standalone interventions, CT showed a greater BP-reducing effect (SMD = -0.98 (-4.76 to 2.81); p = 0.001; I² = 18%); however, this difference was not statistically robust, likely due to the small number of available trials. Although CT lowered BP in older adults with hypertension, very high between-study heterogeneity (I² > 90% in several analyses) limits confidence in these pooled estimates. The effects of AT on BP outcomes were not significantly different from those of RT.
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.