Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816491›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026

Rehabilitation effects of high-intensity interval training on asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Guo Tang, Yijun Cheng, Ke Zeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Guo TangDepartment of Physical Education, College of Engineering and Technology, Chengdu University of Technology, Leshan, China.
Yijun ChengPhysical Culture Institute, Leshan Vocational and Technical College, Leshan, China.
Ke ZengDepartment of Physical Education, College of Engineering and Technology, Chengdu University of Technology, Leshan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has demonstrated benefits in cardiometabolic health, but its efficacy and safety in asthma rehabilitation remain controversial due to inconsistent findings from existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize the latest evidence. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2025 for RCTs comparing HIIT against control conditions (including passive controls and active interventions like moderate-intensity continuous training) in individuals with asthma. Primary outcomes were the Asthma Control Questionnaire (5-item version) (ACQ-5), peak oxygen uptake (VO Results: Seven RCTs (n=518 participants) were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant benefits of HIIT over control conditions for ACQ-5 (SMD: -1.19; 95% CI: -2.69 to 0.32; P=0.12), VO Conclusions: Current evidence does not conclusively establish the superior efficacy of HIIT over conventional rehabilitation or control conditions for asthma management. The pooled effect estimates are highly uncertain due to extreme clinical and methodological heterogeneity stemming from varied HIIT protocols, diverse control groups, and heterogeneous patient populations. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future high-quality RCTs with standardized interventions, rigorous safety monitoring, and phenotypic stratification are needed to define the role of HIIT in asthma rehabilitation.

Indexed as

asthmaHigh-intensity interval training (HIIT)meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID41816491
PMCPMC12972910

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.