SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Effects of high-intensity interval training on glycemic control and cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with prediabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyze intervention studies evaluating the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in adults with prediabetes, with a focus on glycemic control and cardiometabolic risk-related outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2026. Eligible studies included adults with prediabetes who participated in structured HIIT, with either a non-exercise control or an exercise comparator. Primary outcomes were glycemic measures, and secondary outcomes were cardiometabolic risk-related indicators. Change-from-baseline values were used preferentially for pooling effect sizes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, heterogeneity using Cochran's Q and I², and certainty of evidence using GRADE. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024605154). Results: Thirteen intervention studies were included. Because of the limited number of eligible studies, no quantitative synthesis was performed for comparisons with non-exercise controls or across different HIIT protocols. Compared with HIIT, moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) showed a small but statistically significant advantage for fasting blood glucose (FBG) (MD, 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.22; very low certainty). In contrast, HIIT showed significant advantages for 2-hour plasma glucose (2hPG) (MD, -0.16 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.04; low certainty) and cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD, 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.87; moderate certainty). No significant between-group difference was found for body mass index. Evidence for HbA1c, blood pressure, and lipid-related outcomes was limited. Conclusions: In adults with prediabetes, the effects of HIIT may be outcome-specific. HIIT may be more favorable for post-challenge glycemic control and cardiorespiratory fitness, whereas MICT may offer a modest advantage for fasting glucose. However, the certainty of evidence for glycemic outcomes was generally low to very low, and many included studies were short-term, suggesting that some observed effects may reflect short-term physiological responses rather than sustained clinical adaptations. Further high-quality trials with longer intervention periods are needed.
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.