Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40584872›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025

Effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chenggen Peng, Ming Hu, Linlin Yang, Zhichao Yuan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Chenggen PengHunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Ming HuFaculty of Sport and Health Sciences, Guangxi Science & Technology Normal University, Laibin, Guangxi, China.
Linlin YangCollege of Sports, Hunan International Economics University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Zhichao YuanSchool of Sports Science, Changsha Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Advances in cancer treatment have led to a significant increase in the global number of cancer survivors. However, long-term health management challenges-such as reduced cardiopulmonary function, cancer-related fatigue, and metabolic dysregulation-remain formidable. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively compare the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on Cardiopulmonary function, body composition, and physical function in cancer survivors. Thereby providing evidence-based guidance for individualized exercise prescriptions. Methods: By the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost up to February 2025. A total of 12 eligible RCTs were included, breast cancer (n = 7), colorectal cancer (n = 3), and mixed cancer types (n = 2). Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.4, while sensitivity analyses were conducted with Stata MP 14.0 to assess the stability and reliability of the results. Egger's test was utilized to evaluate the presence of publication bias. Results: The meta-analysis revealed that, compared with MICT, HIIT was significantly more effective in improving VO Conclusion: HIIT appears superior to MICT in enhancing VO Systematic Review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/myprospero, identifier CRD420250654968.

Indexed as

body compositioncancer survivorscardiopulmonary functionHIITmeta-analysisMICTphysical function

Identifiers

PMID40584872
PMCPMC12202225

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.