ReviewJournal of exercise science and fitness2026
Effects of high-intensity interval training on cardiovascular health: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Review in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite considerable evidence on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for cardiovascular benefits, overlapping studies and lack of systematic synthesis hinder understanding of its full effects and optimal prescription. This umbrella review synthesizes evidence and summarizes the cardiovascular benefits of HIIT across diverse populations. Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on effects of HIIT on cardiovascular health. Evidence was stratified by population type, overlapping evidence was handled by predefined criteria, quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and results were visualized using forest plots. Results: Initially, 1017 studies were retrieved, of which 54 were included. The results revealed that HIIT significantly improved blood pressure (SBP: -5.43 to -2.73 mmHg; DBP: -4.35 to -2.41 mmHg), resting heart rate (-4.35 to -2.17 bpm), and left ventricular ejection fraction (3.51% to 5.52%). Compared with other exercise modalities such as moderate-intensity continuous training, HIIT showed significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (3.13% to 3.24%), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (-4.69 to -2.55 mm), and flow-mediated dilation (0.35% to 2.57%), with comparable effects on blood pressure and heart rate. Conclusion: HIIT demonstrates advantages over other exercise modalities in improving cardiac structure and volume, with comparable effects on blood pressure and heart rate. These benefits were observed across cardiovascular, metabolic, and apparently healthy populations. However, the current evidence does not support protocol-specific recommendations such as long-interval versus short-interval HIIT, and direct comparisons of different HIIT protocols 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.