SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Effectiveness of various exercise interventions on peak VO
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a prevalent and challenging subtype of heart failure, with limited effective treatment options, especially for improving functional capacity and quality of life. Exercise interventions have shown potential benefits for patients with HFpEF; however, the relative efficacy of different exercise modalities remains unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of various exercise interventions on peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2) and quality of life in patients with HFpEF using a network meta-analysis approach.
methodsA systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating exercise interventions in HFpEF patients. Eligible studies included those comparing exercise modalities such as high-intensity interval training (HIIT), moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), inspiratory muscle training (IMT), usual care (UC), and no-exercise control. Data on peak VO2 (mL/kg/min) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHF) scores were extracted. A network meta-analysis was performed to assess relative efficacy, and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values were calculated for each intervention.
resultsA total of 14 RCTs comprising 810 participants were included. For peak VO2, compared to no exercise (medical treatment without structured exercise), IMT showed the largest numerical improvement (mean difference [MD] 3.29 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76 to 5.82), followed by HIIT (MD 2.77 mL/kg/min; 95% CI: 0.85 to 4.69) and MICT (MD 1.90 mL/kg/min; 95% CI: 0.63 to 3.17). Usual care showed no significant difference from no exercise (MD 0.36; 95% CI: -1.77 to 2.49). Head-to-head comparisons among HIIT, MICT, and IMT did not reach statistical significance. Regarding quality of life, IMT demonstrated a significant reduction in MLWHF scores compared to UC (MD -10.20; 95% CI: -19.13 to -1.28). MICT and HIIT showed numerical improvements that did not reach statistical significance (MICT vs UC: MD -6.00, 95% CI: -16.28 to 4.28; HIIT vs UC: MD -6.00, 95% CI: -22.46 to 10.46). SUCRA rankings indicated that IMT had the highest probability of being the best intervention for peak VO2 (SUCRA = 88.5%) and quality of life (SUCRA = 80.7%), while HIIT ranked second for peak VO2 (SUCRA = 88.2%).
conclusionAmong the exercise modalities analyzed, IMT and HIIT demonstrated the most substantial improvements in peak VO2 for patients with HFpEF, whereas IMT showed the greatest benefit for enhancing quality of life. However, head-to-head differences among exercise modalities were not statistically significant, and peak VO2 is a composite outcome reflecting multiple physiological systems. These findings suggest that exercise intervention selection should be individualized based on patient-specific limitations and therapeutic goals in HFpEF management.
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.