Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33722760›Full record

SynthesisJournal of sport and health science2022

Risk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VO

Jacob T Bonafiglia, Hashim Islam, Nicholas Preobrazenski, Brendon J Gurd

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of sport and health science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Standard Deviation of Individual Response for VOSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Aerobic Exercise Training and VOJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Jacob T BonafigliaSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Hashim IslamSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Nicholas PreobrazenskiSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada.
Brendon J GurdSchool of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. Electronic address: gurdb@queensu.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt remains unclear whether studies comparing maximal oxygen uptake (VO

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive literature search of 4 major databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Studies were excluded if participants were not healthy adult humans or if training protocols were unsupervised, lasted less than 2 weeks, or utilized mixed exercise modalities. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the CONSORT checklist for non-pharmacological trials to evaluate the risk of bias and reporting quality, respectively.

resultsTwenty-eight studies with 30 comparisons (3 studies included 2 SIT groups) were included in our meta-analysis (n = 360 SIT participants: body mass index (BMI) = 25.9 ± 3.7 kg/m

conclusionAlthough we observed a lack of superiority between SIT and MICT for improving VO

Indexed as

High-Intensity Interval TrainingAdultBody Mass IndexExerciseHumansOxygenOxygenBiasCardiorespiratory fitnessCONSORTModerate-intensity continuous trainingSprint interval training

Identifiers

PMID33722760
PMCPMC9532877

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.