Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31269007›Full record

Trial reportMedicine and science in sports and exercise2019

High-Intensity Interval Training Is Feasible in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer.

Adriana M Coletta, Abenaa M Brewster, Minxing Chen, Yisheng Li, Therese B Bevers, Karen Basen-Engquist, Susan C Gilchrist

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Rates of compliance and adherence to high-intensity interval training: a systematic review and Meta-analyses.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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.

Adriana M ColettaCancer Control and Population Sciences Program, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT.
Abenaa M BrewsterDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Minxing ChenDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Yisheng LiDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Therese B BeversDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Karen Basen-EngquistDepartment of Behavioral Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Susan C GilchristDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis trial aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in postmenopausal, overweight/obese women at high risk of invasive breast cancer and to explore HIIT on changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body weight, and body mass index (BMI) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and usual care (UC).

methodsForty-four women were randomized to HIIT, MICT, or UC for a 12-wk, thrice weekly, supervised exercise intervention. HIIT included a 5-min warm-up at 50%-70% HRpeak, four cycles of 4 min at 90%-100% HRpeak, followed by 3 min at 50%-70% HRpeak. MICT consisted of 41 min at 60%-70% HRpeak. Feasibility was assessed by consent, adherence, compliance, and retention rates. CRF, body weight, and BMI were measured at baseline and end of study. Repeated-measures linear mixed models were used to assess within- and between-group differences.

resultsAverage age was 63.9 ± 8.8 yr. BMI was 30.9 ± 5.7 kg·m. Participants completed 90% and 89% of HIIT and MICT workouts, respectively, with 100% compliance to the exercise prescriptions. No serious adverse events were reported. Compared with MICT and UC, HIIT exhibited improvements in change in treadmill time (101 s greater than MICT, and 125 s greater than UC, respectively, P < 0.001). Compared with UC, HIIT exhibited improvement in changes in absolute and relative V˙O2peak (a 0.15-L·min increase, P = 0.005, and a 2.3-mL·kg⋅min increase, P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between groups for body weight or BMI (P > 0.05).

conclusionsHIIT is feasible, safe, and seems to promote greater improvements in CRF compared with MICT and UC in women at high risk for breast cancer.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Interval TrainingAgedBody Mass IndexBody WeightBreast NeoplasmsCardiorespiratory FitnessFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedObesityOverweightPostmenopauseRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID31269007
PMCPMC7028472

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.