Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on blood pressure in prehypertensive and hypertensive individuals: literature search documentation
MetadataShow full item record
Background: Hypertension is the most common condition seen in primary care and it is responsible for a considerable amount of deaths due the heart diseases and stroke. Physical exercise is a cornerstone in the nonpharmacological therapy for those with hypertension and prehypertension. Despite previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported positive effects of aerobic exercise training to decrease resting and ambulatory blood pressure, little is known about the effects of different aerobic exercise training approaches on blood pressure in those with prehypertension and hypertension. Objective: To compare the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for reducing blood pressure in prehypertensive and hypertensive individuals. The secondary outcomes will be adherence to intervention, exercise session attendance, and safety (i.e., reported adverse events). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PEDro will be searched. Randomized trials comparing the effects of HIIT versus MICT on blood pressure (resting and/or ambulatory) in prehypertensive and/or hypertensive adults (≥ 18 years) with or without associated risk factors and/or known cardiometabolic diseases will be considered for analysis. Exercise training intervention for a minimum of four weeks will be considered for analysis. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English and in the last 20 years (1996-2016) will be considered for analysis. The TESTEX Scale (tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise) will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Two reviewers will perform the search in the electronic databases, data extraction and assessment of study quality independently. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements between the two reviewers. The I2 statistic will be calculated to estimate statistical heterogeneity between studies. A random-effects model for meta-analysis will be conducted depending on statistical heterogeneity. Heterogeneity and publication bias among studies will be visualized using funnel plots (if > 10 studies).