ReviewHeart international2025
High-intensity Interval Versus Moderate-intensity Continuous Training in Heart Failure Rehabilitation: A Meta-analysis and Meta-regression.
Review in Heart international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Impact of nursing strategy based on the 6S management model on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction after Percutaneous Coronary intervention.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Guidelines widely recommend exercise training as a complementary therapy for individuals with heart failure. While research highlights the potential of both high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT), a systematic review is required to solidify their effects on improving patients' oxygen uptake, functional capacity, cardiac function and quality of life (QoL). Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of HIIT and MICT on cardiopulmonary fitness, functional capacity, cardiac function and QoL among individuals with heart failure. Method: This review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024602309). We searched PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed Central (PMC), Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) and Wiley. Risk of bias was assessed with the Revised Cochrane for Risk-Of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2), and analyses were conducted in RStudio version 4.4.1. (Posit PBC, Massachusetts, USA) using the 'meta' package. Result: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The overall quality assessment showed a low risk of bias. We found that the HIIT group is favourable in terms of cardiac function improvement, represented by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; mean difference [MD]=2.69 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01, 5.38; p=0.0495]), peak oxygen uptake (peak VO Conclusion: HIIT appears to be more effective than MICT in improving functional capacity, such as LVEF, peak VO
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.