SynthesisEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Sprint interval training for cardiovascular prevention: a time-efficient alternative or an overstated promise? An umbrella review.
Synthesis in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSprint interval training (SIT) is a time-efficient strategy for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). However, existing systematic reviews show conflicting results and variable quality. This umbrella review synthesizes this evidence to appraise the certainty of SIT's effects on CRF.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in six databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing SIT with non-exercise control conditions and other comparator training modalities such as moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), or high-intensity interval training (HIIT). The methodological quality of included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2.
resultsSixteen systematic reviews were included, with a majority (9/16) rated as 'Low' or 'Critically Low' methodological quality. The 16 included reviews synthesized data from 393 unique primary studies and more than 8642 participants, encompassing populations from healthy sedentary adults and athletes to individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. Pooled data showed SIT elicited a significant improvement in CRF versus control (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.59; 95% CI 0.43-0.74). In contrast, no significant difference was found between SIT and MICT (SMD = 0.07; 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.16). Evidence comparing SIT to HIIT was inconclusive.
conclusionSIT is an effective intervention for improving CRF compared to no exercise. However, current evidence, especially from higher-quality systematic reviews, does not support SIT's superiority over MICT. Confidence in these findings is limited by prevalent methodological flaws, underscoring the need for more rigorous primary and secondary research.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID CRD420251074348.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40991003What 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.