Trial reportBMJ open2023
Comparison of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training in pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease: a randomised controlled pilot feasibility trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of exercise training on exercise capacity of patients with interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- High-intensity exercise interventions in cancer survivors: a systematic review exploring the impact on health outcomes.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018Pooled it
- Home-based rehabilitation in interstitial lung disease: picturing the present and drawing the future through a systematic review of the literature.ERJ open research · 2026Review
- Classification of Patients Based on Dyspnea and Desaturation During Exercise in Interstitial Lung Disease.Respiratory care · 2025Article
- Pulmonary rehabilitation in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease: A systematic review.Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2024Article
- Protected characteristics reported in pulmonary rehabilitation: a scoping review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Article
- Exploring the potential of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) for tailored pulmonary rehabilitation in people with interstitial lung disease (ILD): A systematic review protocol.NIHR open research · 2024Article
- Treatable traits in interstitial lung disease: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with interstitial lung disease (ILD).
designSingle-centre, randomised controlled feasibility, pilot trial.
settingPatients were recruited from the chest clinic of a tertiary ILD centre and attended circuit-based PR in the hospital's gym, followed by a personalised 6-month community programme.
participants58 patients, stratified per ILD type, were randomised into two groups: 33 to HIIT (18 males:15 females) (mean age (SD): 70.2 (11.4) years) and 25 to the MICT exercise mode (14 males:11 females) (mean age (SD): 69.8 (10.8) years).
interventions8-week, twice weekly, circuit-based PR programme of exercise and education, followed by a personalised 6-month community exercise programme. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes included staff-to-patient ratio and dropout rates per group. Primary outcome was the 6 min walk distance (6MWD). Secondary outcomes included the sniff nasal pressure, mouth inspiratory and expiratory pressures, handgrip and quadriceps strength and health status. Random-effects models were used to evaluate average variation in outcomes through time across the two groups.
resultsThe 6MWD peaked earlier with HIIT compared with MICT (at 4 months vs 5 months) but values were lower at peak (mean (95% CI): 26.3 m (3.5 to 49.1) vs 51.6 m (29.2 to 73.9)) and declined faster at 6 months post-PR. Secondary outcomes showed similar faster but smaller improvements with HIIT over MICT and more consistent maintenance 6 months post-PR with MICT than HIIT.
conclusionsHIIT is feasible in circuit-based ILD PR programmes and provides quick improvements but requires closer supervision of training and resources than MICT and benefits may be less well sustained. This would make it a less attractive option for clinical PR programmes. A definitive, multicentre randomised controlled trial is required to address the role of HIIT in ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55846300.
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.