MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410153397 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321526

Effect of timed exercise interventions on patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410153397 on OpenAlexafffund
Mirey Karavetian, Cosette Fakih El Khoury, Femke Rutters, Romy Slebe, Diane Lorenzetti, Denis P. Blondin, André C. Carpentier, Jean‐Pierre Després, Joris Hoeks, Andries Kalsbeek, Renée de Mutsert, Marie Pigeyre, Parminder Raina, Patrick Schrauwen, Mireille J. Serlie, Camilia Thieba, Jeroen van der Velde, David J.T. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDiabetes FondsZonMwHealth~Holland
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsycINFOMEDLINECINAHLSystematic reviewMedicineRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPhysical therapyCochrane LibraryEveningInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Exercising at a specific time of day has the potential to mitigate the negative effects of disrupted circadian rhythms caused by irregular work and sleep schedules on the development of chronic diseases. Afternoon/evening exercise is postulated to be superior to morning exercise for various health outcomes, but patient acceptance of timed exercise remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact of exercise timing on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42022322646). We systematically searched databases including MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science, to identify studies which reported on PROMs related to timed exercise interventions: either acutely after a bout of exercise or following extended training (>1 month). Studies were included if they reported primary data from randomized or non-randomized experiments of timed exercise interventions (against any comparator), published in English until August 2023 and reporting on any PROM. Machine-learning software (AR Reviews) was used to aid in abstract screening. Subsequently, two independent reviewers reviewed the included full texts, extracted study details (participants, interventions, outcomes), and evaluated the risk of bias using Cochrane tools (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I). Exercise interventions were summarized using the TIDieR reporting method and results were presented in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines for systematic reviews. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with 403 participants were included in the review. The interventions varied widely in exercise modality, duration, and participant characteristics, contributing to substantial heterogeneity in the findings. Most studies found no significant impact of exercise timing on PROMs. There was some inconsistency between studies for certain outcomes. DISCUSSION: The review suggests that there are no clear detrimental effects of afternoon or evening exercise on PROMs compared to morning exercise. However, the lack of homogeneity in study populations and small sample sizes resulting in low power for PROM outcomes are major limitations of the research in this field. If future research confirms the metabolic advantages of afternoon/evening exercise, this may be an acceptable alternative for individuals.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.015
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSleep and related disorders→French-language works237,207→