Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31539378›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Affective and enjoyment responses to 12 weeks of high intensity interval training and moderate continuous training in adults with Crohn's disease.

Lindsay Bottoms, Dean Leighton, Roger Carpenter, Simon Anderson, Louise Langmead, John Ramage, James Faulkner, Elizabeth Coleman, Caroline Fairhurst, Michael Seed and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay BottomsDepartment of Psychology and Sports Science, University of Hertfordshire, Life and Medical Sciences, Hatfield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4632-3764
Dean LeightonCentre for Immunobiology, Queen Mary University of London, Whitechapel, London.
Roger CarpenterSchool of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, Stratford Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Simon AndersonGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Louise LangmeadDigestive Diseases Clinical Academic Unit, Barts and the London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
John RamageHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hampshire, United Kingdom.
James FaulknerDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Winchester, Winchester, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth ColemanYork Trials Unit, University of York, Heslington, York.
Caroline FairhurstYork Trials Unit, University of York, Heslington, York.
Michael SeedSchool of Health, Sport and Bioscience, University of East London, Stratford Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Garry TewDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle, United Kingdom.
University of East London · GBUniversity of York · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorthumbria University · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Winchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim was to undertake secondary data analysis from a three-arm randomised feasibility trial of high intensity interval training (HIIT), moderate intensity continuous training (MICT), and usual care control in adults with Crohn's disease (CD; n = 36), with a primary focus on exploring affective and enjoyment responses. Twenty-five participants with quiescent or mildly-active CD were randomised to one of the two exercise groups: HIIT (n = 13) and MICT (n = 12). Both groups were offered thrice weekly sessions for 12 weeks. MICT consisted of cycling for 30 minutes at 35% peak power (Wpeak), whereas HIIT involved ten 1-minute bouts at 90% Wpeak, interspersed with 1-minute bouts at 15% Wpeak. Heart rate (HR), differentiated ratings of perceived exertion for legs (RPE-L) and central (RPE-C), along with feeling state (Feeling Scale; FS) were measured at 92.5% of each session. Enjoyment was measured at the end of training using the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Post-hoc exploratory analysis involved a mixed-model two-way ANOVA to compare HR, RPE-L, RPE-C and FS for the exercise sessions in weeks 1, 6 and 12 between groups. Overall, HR was greater (p < 0.01) during HIIT (173 ± 8 bpm) compared with MICT (128 ± 6 bpm). Similarly, RPE-L and RPE-C responses were greater overall (p = 0.03 and p = 0.03, respectively) during HIIT (5.5 ± 1.6 and 5.1 ± 1.7, respectively) compared to MICT (3.3 ± 1.5 and 2.9 ± 1.5, respectively). Overall, FS was 2.2 ± 1.9 for HIIT and 2.1 ± 1.4 for MICT with no effect of treatment group (p = 0.25) or time (p = 0.94). There was also no significant difference in PACES scores between HIIT (99.4 ± 12.9) and MICT (101.3 ± 17.4; p = 0.78). The findings suggest HIIT and MICT protocols elicited similar enjoyment and affect in adults with quiescent or mildly-active CD.

Indexed as

AffectAdolescentAdultAgedCrohn DiseaseFemaleHeart RateHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionPhysical Conditioning, HumanPleasureYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31539378
PMCPMC6754139
OpenAlexW2973775108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.