SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
Comparative effects of high-intensity and sprint interval training on cardiorespiratory fitness and body composition: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
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 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interval training modalities, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and sprint interval training (SIT), are widely recognized for their efficiency and health benefits. However, it remains unclear how baseline fitness levels influence the differential effects of HIIT and SIT on key health-related outcomes. Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of HIIT and SIT on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and body fat mass, with subgroup analyses based on participants' health and training status. Methods: Nine randomized controlled trials (n = 666) were included. Primary outcomes were changes in VO Results: Both HIIT and SIT significantly improved CRF (SMD = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.89-2.18; p < 0.00001) and reduced body fat mass (WMD = -3.45%; 95% CI: -5.04 to -1.87; p < 0.0001) compared to control. Subgroup analyses revealed that HIIT was more effective in improving CRF in overweight/obese individuals (SMD = -0.97; p = 0.0004), while SIT was more effective in reducing fat mass among healthy or trained populations (WMD = 5.85; p < 0.00001). Conclusion: Both HIIT and SIT are effective interventions for enhancing CRF and reducing body fat, but their relative efficacy may depend on participants' baseline health status. HIIT appears optimal for individuals with lower fitness levels, while SIT may be preferable for time-efficient fat reduction in trained populations. Tailoring interval training prescriptions to individual characteristics is recommended. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251016362.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.