Trial reportScientific reports2024
High-intensity interval training is an effective exercise mode to maintain normal blood pressure during pregnancy: a randomized control trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exercise Interventions and Pregnancy-Related Back Pain: Evidence and Gaps From a Systematic Review.International journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- Proteomic changes induced by acute exercise and high-intensity interval training during pregnancy: a pilot randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Photoacoustic and ultrasound Imaging of placental functions in gestational diabetes: From diagnosis to precision interventions.Photoacoustics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pregnant women are more susceptible to high blood pressure (BP) than the general adult population; therefore, all means of preventing this condition should be considered. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is effective in this regard in the general population, but there is a lack of evidence of its effectiveness during pregnancy. This study aimed to compare an 8-week HIIT program to self-performed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity among pregnant women by evaluating changes in BP after a maximal progressive cardiorespiratory exercise test (CPET) performed at pre-intervention and post-intervention time points. A total of 54 Caucasian women in uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies (age 32 ± 4 years, 22 ± 4 weeks of gestation; M ± SD) with normal BP values completed the interventions. The experimental (HIIT) group (n = 34) completed an online supervised HIIT program consisting of three sessions per week and supplemented by an educational class once per week. Participants in the education (EDU) group (n = 20) attended an educational class once per week and were encouraged to perform moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (PA) on their own. Pre- and post-intervention, all women underwent a CPET on a cycle ergometer with a respiratory gas analyzer. On the day of the CPET, maternal systolic and diastolic BP (mmHg) was measured at rest (before the CPET) and approximately 60 min after the CPET using an electronic BP monitor. Identical CPET and BP measurement protocols were employed for both the HIIT and EDU groups at the pre- and post-intervention time points. Pre-intervention, the HIIT and EDU groups both showed a decrease in systolic and diastolic BP after the CPET, though only the change in systolic BP was statistically significant (HIIT group: p = 0.01; EDU group: p = 0.001). Post-intervention, there were no significant differences in either group between resting and post-CPET BP. There were significant post-intervention differences in VO
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.