SynthesisFrontiers in public health2025
A time-efficient public health strategy: a systematic review and meta-regression on the comparable and dose-independent effects of sprint interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous training for metabolic health.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training with Blood Flow Restriction Versus Normobaric Hypoxia on Physiological Parameters in Apparently Healthy Young Men.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Promoting physical activity is a public health priority for managing metabolic dysfunction, yet "lack of time" remains a major barrier to adherence. Sprint interval training (SIT) has emerged as a time-efficient alternative to traditional moderate-intensity continuous Training (MICT), but its relative effectiveness and optimal dosage are unclear. This study aimed to compare the effects of SIT vs. MICT on glycemic control and insulin sensitivity, and to investigate the influence of training dose on these outcomes. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SIT (≥2 weeks) against MICT in adults with metabolic dysfunction. A random-effects model was used to determine the mean difference (MD). A series of univariable meta-regression analyses explored whether the effects were moderated by SIT dose characteristics, including intervention duration, sprint volume, and weekly training load (metabolic equivalent of task [MET]-minutes). Results: Thirteen RCTs (503 participants) were included. The pooled analysis revealed comparable effects between SIT and MICT on all primary glycemic outcomes, including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (MD = -0.02%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-0.10, 0.07]; Conclusion: Our results indicate that SIT and MICT elicit similar improvements in markers of glycemic control for adults with metabolic dysfunction. These findings suggest SIT is a viable and time-efficient alternative to MICT for individuals with limited time availability. However, variability in SIT protocols and the presence of statistical heterogeneity warrant cautious interpretation of these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251118188.
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.