Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation 2024-08, Vol.105 (8), p.1545-1558 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1558 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 1545 |
| container_title | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation |
| container_volume | 105 |
| creator | Youssef, Hussein Gönül, Mine Nur Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa Akar, Kardelen Feys, Peter Cuypers, Koen Vural, Atay |
| description | The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2913449579</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S000399932400025X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2913449579</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-9ea1c48cb4cab57d5cd55b05be53d27ef4f958a1a11c3eab5e08b123ff4109863</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAXrJJ8E88EyM21ai0I3WERAeJneU4Nx2PHCfYzlTzWLwhjqbAjpV_dM65OvdD6B0lJSV0-fFQ6rEPJSOMl5SVhLIXaEEFZ0XN6I-XaEEI4YWUkl-gyxgP-bkUnL5GF7ymUoqaLtCvTcR39nFfbHwCH2064fkWjtrhXdDWW_-It0MAfNN1YJI9At7ttc9_LQSdAK8Hn6yfhin-M1iPv8FeN9bZpJMdPB46vJ1csqMD_GAchCHa-AlfZ3s_BtjPs3P0wykm6LPF5ICjhSesfYu3kHShvXanbHqDXnXaRXj7fF6h719uduu74v7r7WZ9fV8YLpapkKCpqWrTVEY3YtUK0wrRENGA4C1bQVd1eQOaakoNhywBUjeU8a6rKJH1kl-hD-fcMQw_J4hJ9TYacE57yGUVk5RXlRQrmaXsLDW5VgzQqTHYXoeTokTNqNRBzajUjEpRpjKqbHr_nD81PbR_LX_YZMHnswByy7yLoKKx4A20NmQSqh3s__J_A_D2qZo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2913449579</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Youssef, Hussein ; Gönül, Mine Nur ; Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa ; Akar, Kardelen ; Feys, Peter ; Cuypers, Koen ; Vural, Atay</creator><creatorcontrib>Youssef, Hussein ; Gönül, Mine Nur ; Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa ; Akar, Kardelen ; Feys, Peter ; Cuypers, Koen ; Vural, Atay</creatorcontrib><description>The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-9993</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1532-821X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-821X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38199581</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Blood biomarkers ; Cardiorespiratory fitness ; Cognitive functions ; Exercise Therapy - methods ; Exercises ; Fatigue ; High intensity interval training ; High-Intensity Interval Training - methods ; Humans ; Multiple sclerosis ; Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology ; Multiple Sclerosis - rehabilitation ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><ispartof>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2024-08, Vol.105 (8), p.1545-1558</ispartof><rights>2024 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-9ea1c48cb4cab57d5cd55b05be53d27ef4f958a1a11c3eab5e08b123ff4109863</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-9ea1c48cb4cab57d5cd55b05be53d27ef4f958a1a11c3eab5e08b123ff4109863</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1344-1599</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38199581$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Youssef, Hussein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gönül, Mine Nur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akar, Kardelen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feys, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuypers, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vural, Atay</creatorcontrib><title>Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><title>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Arch Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><description>The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.</description><subject>Blood biomarkers</subject><subject>Cardiorespiratory fitness</subject><subject>Cognitive functions</subject><subject>Exercise Therapy - methods</subject><subject>Exercises</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>High intensity interval training</subject><subject>High-Intensity Interval Training - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Multiple sclerosis</subject><subject>Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology</subject><subject>Multiple Sclerosis - rehabilitation</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><issn>0003-9993</issn><issn>1532-821X</issn><issn>1532-821X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAUhS0EotPCC7BAXrJJ8E88EyM21ai0I3WERAeJneU4Nx2PHCfYzlTzWLwhjqbAjpV_dM65OvdD6B0lJSV0-fFQ6rEPJSOMl5SVhLIXaEEFZ0XN6I-XaEEI4YWUkl-gyxgP-bkUnL5GF7ymUoqaLtCvTcR39nFfbHwCH2064fkWjtrhXdDWW_-It0MAfNN1YJI9At7ttc9_LQSdAK8Hn6yfhin-M1iPv8FeN9bZpJMdPB46vJ1csqMD_GAchCHa-AlfZ3s_BtjPs3P0wykm6LPF5ICjhSesfYu3kHShvXanbHqDXnXaRXj7fF6h719uduu74v7r7WZ9fV8YLpapkKCpqWrTVEY3YtUK0wrRENGA4C1bQVd1eQOaakoNhywBUjeU8a6rKJH1kl-hD-fcMQw_J4hJ9TYacE57yGUVk5RXlRQrmaXsLDW5VgzQqTHYXoeTokTNqNRBzajUjEpRpjKqbHr_nD81PbR_LX_YZMHnswByy7yLoKKx4A20NmQSqh3s__J_A_D2qZo</recordid><startdate>20240801</startdate><enddate>20240801</enddate><creator>Youssef, Hussein</creator><creator>Gönül, Mine Nur</creator><creator>Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa</creator><creator>Akar, Kardelen</creator><creator>Feys, Peter</creator><creator>Cuypers, Koen</creator><creator>Vural, Atay</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1344-1599</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240801</creationdate><title>Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</title><author>Youssef, Hussein ; Gönül, Mine Nur ; Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa ; Akar, Kardelen ; Feys, Peter ; Cuypers, Koen ; Vural, Atay</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-9ea1c48cb4cab57d5cd55b05be53d27ef4f958a1a11c3eab5e08b123ff4109863</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Blood biomarkers</topic><topic>Cardiorespiratory fitness</topic><topic>Cognitive functions</topic><topic>Exercise Therapy - methods</topic><topic>Exercises</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>High intensity interval training</topic><topic>High-Intensity Interval Training - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Multiple sclerosis</topic><topic>Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology</topic><topic>Multiple Sclerosis - rehabilitation</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Youssef, Hussein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gönül, Mine Nur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akar, Kardelen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feys, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cuypers, Koen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vural, Atay</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Youssef, Hussein</au><au>Gönül, Mine Nur</au><au>Sobeeh, Mohamed Gomaa</au><au>Akar, Kardelen</au><au>Feys, Peter</au><au>Cuypers, Koen</au><au>Vural, Atay</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Phys Med Rehabil</addtitle><date>2024-08-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>105</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1545</spage><epage>1558</epage><pages>1545-1558</pages><issn>0003-9993</issn><issn>1532-821X</issn><eissn>1532-821X</eissn><abstract>The present study aimed to conduct meta-analysis to determine whether the high intensity interval training (HIIT) protocol is more beneficial in improving outcome measures compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). It also aimed to systematically review the exercise protocols differences.
A search strategy, locating HIIT in PwMS, was executed in six databases, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Central Cochrane, Pedro, and Ovid MEDLine.
Randomized control trials of HIIT utilizing cycle ergometer or recumbent stepper as exercise modalities were included in analysis. Intervention arms should include at least two intervention arms, including HIIT in one arm, and MCT in the other group.
Data extracted from each study includes the following items: basic details of the study (such as author, date of publication, location, and study design), participant characteristics (sample size, mean age, sex, mean disease duration, and extended disability status scale), specifications of the HITT protocol (exercise modality, session duration, number of intervals/session, interval intensity, recovery intensity, recovery interval, and adverse effect), as well as primary outcomes at baseline and post-intervention (cardiorespiratory fitness, fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers).
22 studies included in the systematic review, 11 were included in random effects model pooled analysis. There was a significant effect in favor of HIIT for VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions compared to MCT (ES=0.45 95%, CI [0.14, 0.76], P=.004), and for memory domain of cognitive functions (ES=0.34 95% CI [0.05, 0.63], P=.02). Statistical significance was not achieved for the other variables.
HIIT and MCT yield similar results in terms of fatigue, body composition, cognitive functions, and blood biomarkers. However, VO2max of cardiorespiratory functions and memory domain of cognitive functions were in favor of HIIT protocol.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38199581</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1344-1599</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0003-9993 |
| ispartof | Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2024-08, Vol.105 (8), p.1545-1558 |
| issn | 0003-9993 1532-821X 1532-821X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2913449579 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
| subjects | Blood biomarkers Cardiorespiratory fitness Cognitive functions Exercise Therapy - methods Exercises Fatigue High intensity interval training High-Intensity Interval Training - methods Humans Multiple sclerosis Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology Multiple Sclerosis - rehabilitation Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic |
| title | Is High-Intensity Interval Training More Effective Than Moderate Continuous Training in Rehabilitation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T20%3A51%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is%20High-Intensity%20Interval%20Training%20More%20Effective%20Than%20Moderate%20Continuous%20Training%20in%20Rehabilitation%20of%20Multiple%20Sclerosis:%20A%20Comprehensive%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20physical%20medicine%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Youssef,%20Hussein&rft.date=2024-08-01&rft.volume=105&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1545&rft.epage=1558&rft.pages=1545-1558&rft.issn=0003-9993&rft.eissn=1532-821X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.apmr.2023.12.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2913449579%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2913449579&rft_id=info:pmid/38199581&rft_els_id=S000399932400025X&rfr_iscdi=true |