↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 256)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
40 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
504 Mendeley
Title
High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/oajsm.s150596
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda L Hannan, Wayne Hing, Vini Simas, Mike Climstein, Jeff S Coombes, Rohan Jayasinghe, Joshua Byrnes, James Furness

Abstract

Aerobic capacity has been shown to be inversely proportionate to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving cardiorespiratory fitness within the cardiac population. Previously published systematic reviews in cardiovascular disease have neither investigated the effect that the number of weeks of intervention has on cardiorespiratory fitness changes, nor have adverse events been collated. We aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the cardiac population that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT and to collate adverse events. A critical narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted after systematically searching relevant databases up to July 2017. We searched for RCTs that compared cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT interventions within the cardiac population. Seventeen studies, involving 953 participants (465 for HIIT and 488 for MICT) were included in the analysis. HIIT was significantly superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness overall (SMD 0.34 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.2-0.48]; p<0.00001; I2=28%). There were no deaths or cardiac events requiring hospitalization reported in any study during training. Overall, there were more adverse events reported as a result of the MICT (n=14) intervention than the HIIT intervention (n=9). However, some adverse events (n=5) were not classified by intervention group. HIIT is superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness are significant for CR programs of >6-week duration. Programs of 7-12 weeks' duration resulted in the largest improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness for patients with coronary artery disease. HIIT appears to be as safe as MICT for CR participants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 504 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 504 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 79 16%
Student > Master 66 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 9%
Researcher 27 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 87 17%
Unknown 174 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 95 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 72 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 68 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Other 41 8%
Unknown 204 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 98. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2024.
All research outputs
#422,946
of 25,165,154 outputs
Outputs from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#14
of 256 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,833
of 455,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,165,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 256 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 455,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them