Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38695912›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2024

Effect of low-volume combined aerobic and resistance high-intensity interval training on vascular health in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

Emily R Cox, Trishan Gajanand, Shelley E Keating, Matthew D Hordern, Nicola W Burton, Daniel J Green, Joyce S Ramos, Maximiano V Ramos, Robert G Fassett, Stephen V Cox and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. 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

12 authors.

Emily R Cox *Physiology and Ultrasound Laboratory in Science and Exercise, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia. emily.cox10@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1687-3522
Trishan Gajanand *Physiology and Ultrasound Laboratory in Science and Exercise, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3604-6567
Shelley E KeatingPhysiology and Ultrasound Laboratory in Science and Exercise, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5357-2721
Matthew D HordernCentre for Research on Exercise, Physical Activity and Health, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3886-3093
Nicola W BurtonSchool of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3221-2265
Daniel J GreenSchool of Human Sciences (Exercise and Sport Science), The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3226-2921
Joyce S RamosCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8693-6800
Maximiano V RamosInstitute of Biomedical Technologies, School of Engineering, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1222-2420
Robert G FassettCentre for Research on Exercise, Physical Activity and Health, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5318-6940
Stephen V CoxPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6080-3698
Jeff S CoombesPhysiology and Ultrasound Laboratory in Science and Exercise, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6990-3596
Tom G BaileyPhysiology and Ultrasound Laboratory in Science and Exercise, School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8531-2780

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared the effects of low-volume combined aerobic and resistance high-intensity interval training (C-HIIT), combined moderate-intensity continuous training (C-MICT) and waitlist control (CON) on vascular health after 8-weeks of supervised training, and an additional 10-months of self-directed training, in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

methodsSixty-nine low active adults with T2D were randomised to 8-weeks of supervised C-HIIT (3 times/week, 78-min/week), C-MICT (current exercise guidelines, 4 times/week, 210-min/week) or CON. CON underwent usual care for 8-weeks before being re-randomised to C-HIIT or C-MICT. This was followed by 10-months of self-directed training for participants in C-HIIT and C-MICT. Vascular outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 8-weeks, and 12-months.

resultsAfter 8-weeks, supervised C-HIIT significantly improved relative flow-mediated dilation (FMD) compared with CON (mean difference [MD] 0.8% [0.1, 1.4], p = 0.025). Although not significantly different from CON, the magnitude of change in relative FMD following 8-weeks of supervised C-MICT was similar (MD 0.8% [-0.1, 1.7], p = 0.080). There were no differences in haemodynamic indices, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), or aortic reservoir pressure between groups at 8-weeks. After 12-months, there was a significant reduction in haemodynamic indices (time effect, p < 0.05) for both C-HIIT and C-MICT, with no between-group difference. The reduction in cfPWV over 12-months was significantly greater in C-MICT than C-HIIT (group × time effect, p = 0.018). There was no difference in FMD over time or between groups at 12-months.

conclusionsShort-term supervised C-HIIT and C-MICT both increased brachial artery FMD compared with CON. Long-term C-HIIT and C-MICT were beneficial for improving haemodynamic indices, but not brachial artery FMD. C-MICT was superior to C-HIIT for improving cfPWV at 12-months.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier ACTRN12615000475549.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2High-Intensity Interval TrainingResistance TrainingAgedExerciseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVascular StiffnessBlood pressureDiabetes mellitus, type 2ExerciseFlow-mediated dilationHigh-intensity interval trainingPulse wave velocity

Identifiers

PMID38695912
PMCPMC11365856

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.