MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407192491 · doi:10.1111/dom.16220

Efficacy of high‐intensity interval training in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

2025· review· en· W4407192491 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Tsz‐Chun Poon, Hong‐Yat Li, Alice P.S. Kong, Jonathan P. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHigh-intensity interval trainingCardiorespiratory fitnessMeta-analysisSystematic reviewInterval trainingPhysical therapyConfidence intervalInternal medicineType 2 diabetesGuidelineDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has gained attention as a potentially effective alternative to traditional exercise modalities for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Previous studies have evaluated this exercise strategy with various regimens, comparator groups and outcomes, limiting the generalisability of findings. We performed a novel umbrella review to generate an up-to-date synthesis of the available evidence regarding the effect of HIIT on glycaemic control and other clinically relevant cardiometabolic health outcomes in individuals with T2DM, as compared with traditional moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and/or non-exercise control (CON). This umbrella review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews guideline. Seven databases were searched until August 2024. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses comparing HIIT with MICT and/or CON were included. Literature search, data extraction and methodological quality assessment (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR-2]) were conducted independently by two reviewers. Ten systematic reviews with meta-analyses, encompassing 76 primary studies and 2954 unique participants, met the inclusion criteria. The data indicated that HIIT significantly improves glycosylated haemoglobin and cardiorespiratory fitness compared with CON (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.83% to -0.39% and 3.35-6.38 mL/kg/min) and MICT (WMD: -0.37% to -0.07% and 1.68-4.12 mL/kg/min) in individuals with T2DM. HIIT is also effective in improving other glycaemic parameters, including fasting blood glucose, fasting blood insulin and HOMA-IR. Improvement in body composition, lipid profiles and blood pressure has also been observed following HIIT. Most systematic reviews received moderate to low AMSTAR-2 score. This umbrella review supports HIIT as an efficacious exercise strategy for improving glycaemic control and certain relevant cardiometabolic health outcomes in individuals with T2DM. Our findings offer a comprehensive basis that may potentially contribute to informing physical activity recommendations for incorporating HIIT into T2DM management strategies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207