SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2025
The safety and efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in post-stroke patients with moderate functional impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus conventional rehabilitation for improving lower limb function in post-stroke patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to January 2025. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults in post-stroke rehabilitation published in English were included, while grey literature was excluded. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The primary outcomes were 6-min walk test (6MWT), Self-Selected Speed (SSS) and the Fastest Speed (FS). The secondary outcomes were peak oxygen uptake (Peak VO Results: This meta-analysis included 10 studies. The results showed that high-intensity interval training has demonstrated significant improvements in walking ability and cardiopulmonary function compared with controls. High-intensity interval training had positive effects on 6MWT [ Conclusion: HIIT may be a safe and effective therapy for specific post-stroke patients, but more high-quality research is needed to confirm its efficacy and optimize protocols. Systematic review registration: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (Unique Identifier: CRD42025637166). The protocol can be accessed at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025637166.
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.