Optimising Exercise Prescription: A Meta-Analysis Examining the Dose Response of Exercise Duration on Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following HIIT and MICT.

Felipe Mattioni Maturana; Nur Hidayah Asilah Zadon; Matthew Cocks; Andreas M Nie&#xdf;; Dick H J Thijssen; Ellen Adele Dawson

doi:10.1007/s40279-026-02528-y

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42730846

Optimising Exercise Prescription: A Meta-Analysis Examining the Dose Response of Exercise Duration on Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following HIIT and MICT.

Felipe Mattioni Maturana·Nur Hidayah Asilah Zadon·Matthew Cocks·Andreas M Nieß·Dick H J Thijssen·Ellen Adele Dawson

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is often promoted as a time-efficient alternative to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving cardiorespiratory fitness, yet the duration of HIIT sessions varies considerably across studies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterise the dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and the improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness for HIIT and MICT. METHODS: A dose-response meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing exercise duration in HIIT and MICT, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022335590). Effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome was maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). Secondary outcomes included blood pressure, lipid profiles, glucose metabolism markers and body composition measures. A one-stage random-effects dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the relationship between exercise duration and adaptations. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar; eligibility criteria for selecting studies were randomised controlled trials in humans, published in English and exercise interventions lasting at least 4 weeks. RESULTS: We identified 69 randomised controlled trials (2387 participants). High-intensity interval training elicited greater improvements in VO2max than MICT (d = 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.49, p < 0.001). High-intensity interval training demonstrated a non-linear dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and VO2max, with 80% of maximal effect (changes in VO2max = 3.45 mL/kg/min) achieved with only ~11 min/session (95% confidence interval 9.5-40.2). Moderate-intensity interval training showed a linear dose-response relationship between exercise session duration and VO2max, requiring ~52 min/session to achieve 80% of the maximal observed effect (95% confidence interval 30.4-55.8). The dose-response relationship was consistent across populations. High-intensity interval training and MICT had comparable effects in improving cardiometabolic risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity interval training demonstrated a non-linear dose response, with 80% of maximal effect on VO2max in ~11 min/session, whilst MICT required four to five times longer to reach similar responses. The different types of training had comparable effects on cardiometabolic risk factors.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article Systematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Felipe Mattioni Maturana, Nur Hidayah Asilah Zadon, Matthew Cocks, Andreas M Nieß, Dick H J Thijssen, Ellen Adele Dawson. 2026-09-12. Optimising Exercise Prescription: A Meta-Analysis Examining the Dose Response of Exercise Duration on Cardiorespiratory Fitness Following HIIT and MICT.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-026-02528-y

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Systematic Review resource Journal Article subject Systematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Identifying and Prioritizing Core Components of Relationship Education Programs: a Case Study of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assisted Systematic Review.

The field of prevention science seeks to identify and implement effective strategies to address social, emotional, and health challenges. A critical aspect of this endeavor is determining the core components of prevention programs that drive positive outcomes. This article presents a case study utilizing artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted systematic review methods to identify key components of healthy marriage and relationship education programs. Given the growing body of research in this domain, AI tools offer a promising means to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of literature reviews. This study employed AI to screen, code, and validate research articles, demonstrating its effectiveness in expediting systematic reviews while maintaining high accuracy in inclusion screening. This case study involved a systematic review of 22,028 resources (identified from PsycINFO, Academic Search Ultimate, and Google) and a final data set of 268 relevant studies. AI screening was integral in effectively conducting multiple rounds of screening. However, findings also highlight challenges in AI-assisted qualitative data abstraction, underscoring the continued need for human expertise in complex coding tasks. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on integrating AI into prevention science methodologies and offers insights for optimizing AI applications in systematic reviews.

Artificial Intelligence↗

PubMed2026

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The application of artificial intelligence in healthcare practice: A mapping review of systematic reviews.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming healthcare practice, with growing evidence supporting its use in diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and operational decision-making. The proliferation of systematic reviews in recent years underscores the need for an updated synthesis of the literature to inform research, policy, and practice. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and CINAHL for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2019 and February 2026. Eligible reviews focused on AI applications in healthcare practice, were peer-reviewed, and written in English. A total of 368 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Publication volume increased steadily, peaking in 2025. AI research was concentrated in high-density domains, such as radiology, oncology, and critical care. Across reviews, diagnostic imaging, electronic health record (EHR) data, and biomarkers/laboratory results accounted for 68% of training data sources, though newer data types, such as wearable device and sensor data, emerged from 2022 onward. Diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment comprised over 80% of AI applications, with novel uses emerging in recent years, such as AI-assisted clinical documentation (e.g., ambient documentation tools) and patient education. Ethical concerns were reported in 78.5% of reviews, with privacy, model accuracy, data and algorithmic bias, and explainability as recurrent themes. The proportion of reviews reporting ethical concerns increased from 2021 to 2025. AI applications in healthcare are expanding in scope, diversifying in data sources, and evolving toward novel clinical and operational uses. The human-centered AI or augmented intelligence paradigm, integrating computational precision with clinical expertise, holds significant promise but will require parallel advances in governance, regulatory frameworks, and ethical oversight to ensure safe adoption.

Artificial Intelligence↗