SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of exercise modalities and doses on carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effects of exercise modalities and exercise dose on carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) in adults using pairwise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and dose-response analysis. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to 28 January 2026 for parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adults reporting cfPWV. Trials evaluating seven exercise modalities were included. Pairwise meta-analysis, frequentist network meta-analysis, and Bayesian dose-response analysis were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Sixty-nine studies involving 3,422 participants were included. Overall, exercise reduced cfPWV vs. control (WMD = -0.74 m/s, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.46), although heterogeneity was considerable. In the network meta-analysis, aerobic training, combined training, and interval training reduced cfPWV vs. non-exercise control, but no active modality was statistically superior to another. Certainty of evidence was moderate for combined training, low for aerobic training, and very low for interval training vs. control. Bayesian dose-response modelling suggested a nonlinear, model-derived association, with greater uncertainty at the extremes of the dose distribution. Conclusion: Exercise training was associated with lower cfPWV in adults, with the most consistent certainty supporting combined training. Comparative rankings and dose-response estimates should be interpreted as exploratory because of heterogeneity, initial network inconsistency, prediction intervals crossing the null, and model-dependent dose estimation. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261355633, PROSPERO identifier CRD420261355633.
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.