SynthesisFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Mapping five decades of high-intensity interval training research (1977-2026): database sensitivity, intellectual structure, and thematic development.
Synthesis in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 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
Objective: To characterize HIIT research while testing how database membership, document eligibility, and keyword metadata affect bibliometric representations of the field. Methods: Archived Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and PubMed exports were reconstructed through documented deduplication and retrospective computational metadata screening. The primary corpus comprised 7,141 research articles published from 1977 to the March 2026 snapshot. Analyses included database sensitivity, Bradford zones and cumulative-model fit, identifier-based Lotka estimation, source-specific citations, WoS reference co-citation, author-keyword mapping, volume-balanced thematic periods, and Scopus affiliation-country collaboration. Results: Of 18,578 record instances, 8,365 unique records remained after deduplication; 1,224 were excluded under the documented rules. Annual output increased from 80 articles in 2013 to 898 in 2025. Scopus membership covered 94.17% of the primary union, compared with 71.63% for WoS and 71.92% for PubMed. Top-20 keyword sets were similar across single-source subsets (Jaccard = 0.905-1.000), whereas keyword-field and network-size choices produced 3-8 themes. The 19 core journal identities contributed 33.61% of articles. Among 24,074 Scopus author identifiers, the estimated Lotka exponent was β = 2.447; both the fitted and classical full-range models failed bootstrap goodness-of-fit tests ( Conclusion: Broad topic visibility was comparatively stable, but database-specific contributions and thematic granularity depended on eligibility and metadata decisions. Source-resolved indicators and explicit sensitivity analyses provide a more defensible representation than an unqualified merged-data map. Findings describe bibliographic structure, not intervention effectiveness; historical search-date precision and independent screening agreement remain limitations.
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.