Trial reportPloS one2022
Intermittent aerobic-resistance interval training versus continues aerobic training: Improvement in cardiac electrophysiologic and anthropometric measures in male patients post myocadiac infarction, a randomized control trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Exercise Modality on Heart Rate Variability in Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- HRV-guided training vs traditional HIIT training in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial.GeroScience · 2024Trial
- Case Report: Exercise-induced normalization of chronic left bundle branch block: a rare recovery-phase phenomenon.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- The Role and Potential Mechanisms of Rehabilitation Exercise Improving Cardiac Remodeling.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeExercise is a valuable intervention modality for patients post-myocardial infarction (MI). Aerobic and resistance training are both commonly used separately in cardiac rehabilitation. However, the effect of aerobic interval exercise combined with alternating sets of resistance training (super-circuit training, SCT) on cardiac electrophysiologic and anthropometric measures had not been thoroughly investigated.
aimThe primary objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moderate-intensity continuous-aerobic training (CAT) vs. SCT on cardiac electrical measures (resting electrocardiographic, ECG; a nd heart rate variability, HRV) in patients' post-MI presenting reduced left ventricular function. Second, to examine its effect on anthropometric measures. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwenty-nine men post-MI with reduced left ventricular function were assigned randomly to either 12 weeks of CAT (n = 15) or SCT (n = 14). CAT group performed moderate-intensity activity. SCT group performed high-intensity exercise, alternating between resistance and aerobic training. Differences between CAT and SCT groups were done using independent t-tests, paired t-tests and effect size (ES).
resultsParticipants in both groups improved their HRV measures (increase in HFnu; p < 0.05; ES > 0.51) and ECG (reduction in QT-dispersion; p < 0.05; ES > 0.51). Only the SCT group had significant improvements in waist circumference (p < 0.05).
conclusionExercise improves cardiac electrical measures post-MI. However, in comparison to CAT, SCT may yield greater anthropometric changes. In order to have improvements in cardiac electrical stability, clinicians working with post-MI patients may use both CAT and SCT. However, SCT might result in greater improvements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.