Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29683925›Full record

SynthesisMedicine and science in sports and exercise2018

Short-Term (<8 wk) High-Intensity Interval Training in Diseased Cohorts.

James E M Blackwell, Brett Doleman, Philip J J Herrod, Samuel Ricketts, Bethan E Phillips, Jonathan N Lund, John P Williams

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Advances in management of sarcoidosis-associated fatigue: A narrative review.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James E M BlackwellUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
Brett DolemanUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
Philip J J HerrodUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
Samuel RickettsUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
Bethan E PhillipsUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
Jonathan N LundUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
John P WilliamsUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UNITED KINGDOM.
University of Nottingham · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 19891Medical Research Council MR/K00414X/1Medical Research Council MR/P021220/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimExercise training regimes can lead to improvements in measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), improved general health, and reduced morbidity and overall mortality risk. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) offers a time-efficient approach to improve CRF in healthy individuals, but the relative benefits of HIIT compared with traditional training methods are unknown in across different disease cohorts.

methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis compares CRF gains in randomized controlled trials of short-term (<8 wk) HIIT versus either no exercise control (CON) or moderate continuous training (MCT) within diseased cohorts. Literature searches of the following databases were performed: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PubMed (all from inception to December 1, 2017), with further searches of Clinicaltrials.gov and citations via Google Scholar. Primary outcomes were effect on CRF variables: V˙O2peak and anaerobic threshold.

resultsThirty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. HIIT resulted in a clinically significant increase in V˙O2peak compared with CON (mean difference [MD] = 3.32 mL·kg·min, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.56-2.08). Overall HIIT provided added benefit to V˙O2peak over MCT (MD = 0.79 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.20-1.39). The benefit of HIIT was most marked in patients with cardiovascular disease when compared with MCT (V˙O2peak: MD = 1.66 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.60-2.73; anaerobic threshold: MD = 1.61 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.33-2.90).

conclusionsHIIT elicits improvements in objective measures of CRF within 8 wk in diseased cohorts compared with no intervention. When compared with MCT, HIIT imparts statistically significant additional improvements in measures of CRF, with clinically important additional improvements in V˙O2peak in cardiovascular patients. Comparative efficacy of HIIT versus MCT combined with an often reduced time commitment may warrant HIIT's promotion as a viable clinical exercise intervention.

Indexed as

Cardiorespiratory FitnessHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingAnaerobic ThresholdCardiovascular DiseasesHumansOxygen ConsumptionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29683925
PMCPMC6133203
OpenAlexW2796649937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.