Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35507539›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

School-based high-intensity interval training programs in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stephanie L Duncombe, Alan R Barker, Bert Bond, Renae Earle, Jo Varley-Campbell, Dimitris Vlachopoulos, Jacqueline L Walker, Kathryn L Weston, Michalis Stylianou

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

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

9 authors.

Stephanie L DuncombeSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0673-6409
Alan R BarkerChildren's Health and Exercise Research Centre, Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Bert BondChildren's Health and Exercise Research Centre, Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Renae EarleSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Jo Varley-CampbellDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Dimitris VlachopoulosChildren's Health and Exercise Research Centre, Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1556-715X
Jacqueline L WalkerSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Kathryn L WestonSchool of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Michalis StylianouSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5905-8229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose1) To investigate the effectiveness of school-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) interventions in promoting health outcomes of children and adolescents compared with either a control group or other exercise modality; and 2) to explore the intervention characteristics and process outcomes of published school-based HIIT interventions.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science from inception until 31 March 2021. Studies were eligible if 1) participants aged 5-17 years old; 2) a HIIT intervention within a school setting ≥ 2 weeks duration; 3) a control or comparative exercise group; 4) health-related, cognitive, physical activity, nutrition, or program evaluation outcomes; and 5) original research published in English. We conducted meta-analyses between HIIT and control groups for all outcomes with ≥ 4 studies and meta-regressions for all outcomes with ≥ 10 studies. We narratively synthesised results between HIIT and comparative exercise groups.

resultsFifty-four papers met eligibility criteria, encompassing 42 unique studies (35 randomised controlled trials; 36 with a high risk of bias). Meta-analyses indicated significant improvements in waist circumference (mean difference (MD) = -2.5cm), body fat percentage (MD = -1.7%), body mass index (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -1.0), cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD = +1.0), resting heart rate (MD = -5bpm), homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance (MD = -0.7), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD = -0.9) for HIIT compared to the control group. Our narrative synthesis indicated mixed findings between HIIT and other comparative exercise groups.

conclusionSchool-based HIIT is effective for improving several health outcomes. Future research should address the paucity of information on physical activity and nutrition outcomes and focus on the integration and long-term effectiveness of HIIT interventions within school settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018117567.

Indexed as

Cardiorespiratory FitnessHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolExerciseHumansSchools

Identifiers

PMID35507539
PMCPMC9067698

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.