Evan Campbell1, Elaine H Coulter2, Lorna Paul3. 1. School of Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Electronic address: e.campbell.4@research.gla.ac.uk. 2. Division of Dietetics, Nutrition & Biological Sciences, Physiotherapy, Podiatry & Radiography, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Elaine.Coulter@gcu.ac.uk. 3. School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom. Electronic address: LornaPaul@gcu.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic high intensity interval training (HIIT) is safe in the general population and more efficient in improving fitness than continuous moderate intensity training. The body of literature examining HIIT in multiple sclerosis (MS) is expanding but to date a systematic review has not been conducted. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of HIIT in people with MS. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in September 2017 in EMBASE, MEDline, PEDro, CENTRAL and Web of Science Core collections using appropriate keywords and MeSH descriptors. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, used HIIT, and included participants with MS. Quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The following data were extracted using a standardised form: study design and characteristics, outcome measures, significant results, drop-outs, and adverse events. RESULTS: Seven studies (described by 11 articles) were identified: four randomised controlled trials, one randomised cross-over trial and two cohort studies. PEDro scores ranged from 3 to 8. Included participants (n = 249) were predominantly mildly disabled; one study included only people with progressive MS. Six studies used cycle ergometry and one used arm ergometry to deliver HIIT. One study reported six adverse events, four which could be attributed to the intervention. The other six reported that there were no adverse events. Six studies reported improvements in at least one outcome measure, however there were 60 different outcome measures in the seven studies. The most commonly measured domain was fitness, which improved in five of the six studies measuring aspects of fitness. The only trial not to report positive results included people with progressive and a more severe level of disability (Extended Disability Status Scale 6.0-8.0). CONCLUSION: HIIT appears to be safe and effective in increasing fitness in people with MS and low levels of disability. Further research is required to explore the effectiveness of HIIT in people with progressive MS and in those with higher levels of disability. Crown
BACKGROUND: Aerobic high intensity interval training (HIIT) is safe in the general population and more efficient in improving fitness than continuous moderate intensity training. The body of literature examining HIIT in multiple sclerosis (MS) is expanding but to date a systematic review has not been conducted. The aim of this review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of HIIT in people with MS. METHODS: A systematic search was carried out in September 2017 in EMBASE, MEDline, PEDro, CENTRAL and Web of Science Core collections using appropriate keywords and MeSH descriptors. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, used HIIT, and included participants with MS. Quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The following data were extracted using a standardised form: study design and characteristics, outcome measures, significant results, drop-outs, and adverse events. RESULTS: Seven studies (described by 11 articles) were identified: four randomised controlled trials, one randomised cross-over trial and two cohort studies. PEDro scores ranged from 3 to 8. Included participants (n = 249) were predominantly mildly disabled; one study included only people with progressive MS. Six studies used cycle ergometry and one used arm ergometry to deliver HIIT. One study reported six adverse events, four which could be attributed to the intervention. The other six reported that there were no adverse events. Six studies reported improvements in at least one outcome measure, however there were 60 different outcome measures in the seven studies. The most commonly measured domain was fitness, which improved in five of the six studies measuring aspects of fitness. The only trial not to report positive results included people with progressive and a more severe level of disability (Extended Disability Status Scale 6.0-8.0). CONCLUSION: HIIT appears to be safe and effective in increasing fitness in people with MS and low levels of disability. Further research is required to explore the effectiveness of HIIT in people with progressive MS and in those with higher levels of disability. Crown
Authors: Djeniffer Elias da Silva; Antônio José Grande; Leonardo Roever; Gary Tse; Tong Liu; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Joni Márcio de Farias Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2019-02-02 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: Yumi Kim; Byron Lai; Tapan Mehta; Mohanraj Thirumalai; Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan; James H Rimmer; Robert W Motl Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Alexandra Schättin; Stephan Häfliger; Alain Meyer; Barbara Früh; Sonja Böckler; Yannic Hungerbühler; Eling D de Bruin; Sebastian Frese; Regula Steinlin Egli; Ulrich Götz; René Bauer; Anna Lisa Martin-Niedecken Journal: JMIR Serious Games Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 4.143
Authors: Lisa Baquet; Helge Hasselmann; Stefan Patra; Jan-Patrick Stellmann; Eik Vettorazzi; Andreas K Engel; Sina Cathérine Rosenkranz; Jana Poettgen; Stefan Michael Gold; Karl-Heinz Schulz; Christoph Heesen Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Rosalind Kalb; Theodore R Brown; Susan Coote; Kathleen Costello; Ulrik Dalgas; Eric Garmon; Barbara Giesser; June Halper; Herb Karpatkin; Jennifer Keller; Alexander V Ng; Lara A Pilutti; Amanda Rohrig; Paul Van Asch; Kathleen Zackowski; Robert W Motl Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Nadine Patt; Jan Kool; Ruth Hersche; Max Oberste; David Walzik; Niklas Joisten; Daniel Caminada; Francesca Ferrara; Roman Gonzenbach; Claudio Renato Nigg; Christian Philipp Kamm; Philipp Zimmer; Jens Bansi Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 2.474