SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
The effects of brain endurance training on mental fatigue, endurance, and cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically evaluated the effects of Brain Endurance Training (BET) on alleviating mental fatigue, enhancing endurance performance, and improving cognitive function through a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine peer-reviewed articles comprising 11 studies identified via a comprehensive database search following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The pooled results demonstrated that BET significantly improved endurance performance compared to control conditions, with a more pronounced effect under fatigued conditions (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI 0.61-1.13) than at baseline (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.34). Cognitive performance measures also showed substantial improvements, including faster Stroop test reaction times (Stroop-RT) (MD = 56.62, 95% CI 16.50-96.73) and enhanced Psychomotor Vigilance Task reaction time (PVT-RT) both at baseline (MD = 1.96, 95% CI 0.15-3.77) and under fatigue (MD = 18.72, 95% CI 15.27-22.18). BET exhibited significantly greater mental fatigue resistance in fatigued states (MD = 9.22, 95% CI 1.64-16.79) compared to baseline (MD = -0.54, 95% CI -2.44-1.36). Subgroup analyses revealed that no statistically significant differences were observed between subgroups based on participant characteristics or training protocols (all p > 0.05). While some descriptive numerical trends were observed, suggesting that BET might be influenced by individual differences and training design, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to overlapping confidence intervals and limited statistical power. Specifically, point estimates appeared higher in untrained individuals (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.52) than in trained individuals (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.04-0.30). Similarly, BET yielded comparable improvements in dynamic endurance tests (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.36) and static tests (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI -0.14-0.52). Numerically larger effects were also noted when cognitive training preceded physical training (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI 0.06-0.61). In addition, interventions lasting ≥ 8 weeks (SMD = 0.27) and lower-frequency training (< 4 sessions/week) showed descriptive tendencies toward greater improvements. Overall, these findings provide preliminary quantitative insights into the impact of BET and offer preliminary references for designing specialized training protocols. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251128193.
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.