SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
A meta-analysis of the effects of high-intensity interval training on circulatory system-related indicators in sedentary populations.
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 3 papers.
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.
- Effects of High-Intensity Interval Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Adults with Prediabetes: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Exercise reverses the sedentary cardiac phenotype in obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hemodynamic, structural, and functional adaptations.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study systematically evaluated the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on circulatory indicators in sedentary populations. Following the framework of systematic review and meta-analysis, it synthesized current evidence to support the evidence-based application of HIIT in exercise interventions for sedentary individuals. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered on PROSPERO. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CNKI for studies published between January 2000 and July 2025. Inclusion criteria used the PICOS framework: Participants (sedentary individuals), Intervention (HIIT), Comparison (control), Outcomes (blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, flow-mediated dilation, heart rate), and Study type randomized controlled trials. The search yielded 434 records. After duplicate removal and screening, 14 RCTs (500 participants) were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool assessed study quality, and analyses used RevMan 5.4. Results: Significant differences were observed between the HIIT and control groups in several outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD = -5.02, 95% CI: -7.29 to -2.76, P < 0.0001), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD = -2.43, 95% CI: -4.08 to -0.79, P = 0.004), pulse wave velocity (PWV) (MD = -0.28, 95% CI: -0.56 to -0.01, P = 0.04), flow-mediated dilation (FMD) (SMD = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.32-1.92, P = 0.006), and heart rate (MD = -0.36, 95% CI: -0.69 to -0.03, P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis of FMD revealed no heterogeneity in studies with a mean participant age of >30 years (P = 0.38, I Conclusion: HIIT effectively improves key circulatory indicators in sedentary populations, including blood pressure, vascular elasticity, and endothelial function, making it a valuable exercise strategy for vascular health management. However, further high-quality and standardized clinical trials are needed to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier CRD420251106079.
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.