SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
The effects of high-intensity interval training on executive function in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on executive function in children and adolescents, and to quantify its effects on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility using a three-level meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched from inception to May 2026. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled intervention studies examining the effects of HIIT on executive function in children and adolescents were included. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, while non-randomized intervention studies were assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Hedges' g was used as the effect size index. A three-level meta-analytic model was applied to account for the dependency of multiple effect sizes within the same study. Three-level Egger regression was used to assess publication bias and small-study effects, and sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of the findings. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, comprising 9 randomized controlled trials and 2 non-randomized controlled intervention studies, with 776 children and adolescents. The meta-analysis showed that HIIT significantly improved inhibitory control (Hedges' g = 0.227, 95% CI: 0.066 to 0.388, Conclusion: HIIT has positive effects on executive function in children and adolescents, particularly on inhibitory control and working memory, for which the certainty of evidence is moderate. Although HIIT also showed a positive effect on cognitive flexibility, this finding should be interpreted cautiously because of the limited number of studies and very low certainty of evidence. Further high-quality, large-sample studies with standardized intervention protocols and outcome measures are needed to confirm the effects of HIIT on executive function and to identify optimal training parameters for children and adolescents.
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.