4.6 Review

Effect of leisure-time physical activity in controlling hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056270

关键词

hypertension; epidemiology; preventive medicine; public health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, affecting over 1.13 billion individuals worldwide. However, around half of individuals with hypertension do not continue treatment with medication. This research aims to examine the effect of leisure-time physical activity in controlling blood pressure.
Introduction Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. In 2015, over 1.13 billion individuals worldwide had hypertension. Globally, it results in 10.8 million deaths every year. Around half of the individuals do not continue treatment with medicine to control blood pressure. Physical activity, a non-pharmacological option of treatment, reduces blood pressure. We aim in this research to examine the effect of leisure-time physical activity in controlling blood pressure. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to conduct this study. We will perform a systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Physical Education Index (ProQuest) and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library). Both experimental and observational studies will be included. The study population would be people with hypertension. Two reviewers will perform screening of the articles, bias assessment and data extraction independently. We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools to assess the risk of bias. We will conduct a meta-analysis if it is applicable. Ethics and dissemination The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific seminars and conferences. Ethical approval is not applicable. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021260751.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据