SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Efficacy of different high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training for body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in obese/overweight patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
High-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are essential for managing obesity; however, their efficacy is debated. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the effects of HIIT and MICT on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in adults with obesity. Related randomized controlled trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to December 5, 2024. Bayesian NMA was performed on studies with intervention durations of 8–16 weeks to evaluate the effects of HIIT (≥ 75 or < 75 min/week) and MICT (≥ 150 or < 150 min/week) on primary outcomes (body weight, body mass index [BMI], body fat percentage [BFP] and maximal oxygen consumption [VO₂max]) and secondary outcomes (waist-to-hip ratio [WHR], waist circumference [WC], and hip circumference). Mean differences (MDs) and credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were used to rank interventions. The analysis incorporated 18 eligible studies. Compared to the control group, HIIT ≥ 75 min/week was associated with reductions in BFP (MD=-3.05, 95% CrI: -4.69, -1.42), WHR (MD=-0.05, 95% CrI: -0.08, -0.02), and WC (MD=-4.82, 95% CrI: -9.21, -0.46). This regimen ranked first by SUCRA for these outcomes (84.74%, 97.58%, 74.63%, respectively). It also demonstrated the greatest improvement in VO2max (MD = 5.94, 95% CrI: 2.97, 8.88), with a corresponding SUCRA value of 88.68%. Relative to the control group and most other interventions, HIIT ≥ 75 min/week appeared to be associated with greater reductions in BMI and body weight. In conclusion, based on short-term (8–16 weeks) evidence with moderate-to-low certainty, HIIT appears to be a time-efficient option for modest fat loss. HIIT ≥ 75 min/week may be considered for short-term fat loss. MICT ≥ 150 min/week may be an alternative for individuals with low exercise tolerance.
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.