Why the study?
Isometric resistance training is endorsed in blood pressure guidelines but underprescribed, possibly due to low provider awareness, making citation of these guidelines in the literature an important step.
There is a low rate of citation of foundational blood pressure management guidelines in the isometric resistance training literature, which may contribute to its underutilization in clinical practice.
Isometric resistance training is endorsed in global blood pressure management guidelines, but not yet routinely prescribed in clinical practice. A lack of health care provider awareness of its recommendation by governing bodies may be a contributing factor. Citing the guidelines within the isometric resistance training scientific literature is an important step in promoting its prescription. This scoping review quantified the extent to which guidelines put forth by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and Exercise and Sport Science Australia, two of the most descriptive guidelines endorsing isometric resistance training as a blood pressure-lowering tool, were cited. Searches were conducted in OVID Medline, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health. Eligible sources were those published in English between November 2017 and December 2023, which referred to the use of isometric resistance training for hypertension prevention and/or management and cited at least one guideline. Extracted data was tabulated and frequency counts performed. Forty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria, 16% of which cited the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, and 3% the Exercise and Sport Science Australia guidelines. Less than 50% of the identified sources linked isometric resistance training overtly to the guidelines. Increasing awareness by citing these guidelines within the IRT scientific literature may help promote its use by health care providers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bornais et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: