Risk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VO responses to sprint interval vs. continuous training: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether studies comparing maximal oxygen uptake (VO) response to sprint interval training (SIT) vs. moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) are associated with a high risk of bias and poor reporting quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of bias and quality of reporting in studies comparing changes in VO between SIT and MICT.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of 4 major databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. Studies were excluded if participants were not healthy adult humans or if training protocols were unsupervised, lasted less than 2 weeks, or utilized mixed exercise modalities. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the CONSORT checklist for non-pharmacological trials to evaluate the risk of bias and reporting quality, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with 30 comparisons (3 studies included 2 SIT groups) were included in our meta-analysis (n = 360 SIT participants: body mass index (BMI) = 25.9 ± 3.7 kg/m, baseline VO = 37.9 ± 8.0 mL/kg/min; n = 359 MICT participants: BMI = 25.5 ± 3.8 kg/m, baseline VO = 38.3 ± 8.0 mL/kg/min; all mean ± SD). All studies had an unclear risk of bias and poor reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

Although we observed a lack of superiority between SIT and MICT for improving VO (weighted Hedge's g = -0.004, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.08 to 0.07), the overall unclear risk of bias calls the validity of this conclusion into question. Future studies using robust study designs are needed to interrogate the possibility that SIT and MICT result in similar changes in VO.