Rates of compliance and adherence to high-intensity interval training: a systematic review and Meta-analyses

Table 4 GRADE Evidence Profile for compliance and adherence rates to high-intensity interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous training interventions among insufficiently active individuals

Certainty assessment							№ of patients		Absolute Effect (95% CI)	Certainty
№ of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	HIIT	MICT	Absolute Effect (95% CI)	Certainty
Compliance
65	Randomized trials	Not serious^a	Not serious^b	Serious^c	Not serious^d	No publication bias detected	1249	1230	SMD 0.015 SD higher (0.088 lower to 0.118 higher)	⨁⨁⨁◯ Moderate
Adherence
10	Randomized trials	Serious^e	Serious^f	Serious^g	Serious^h	No publication bias detected	301	282	SMD 0.313 SD lower (0.681 lower to 0.056 higher)	⨁◯◯◯ Very low

CI confidence interval, SMD standardized mean difference
^a 15.4% of included studies were assessed to have high risk of bias, the results of which did not significantly differ from studies with low/moderate risk of bias, so quality of evidence was not downgraded
^b Moderate heterogeneity in findings with relatively low between-study variance
^c Diversity in interventions delivered decreases the directness of the comparisons between groups
^d Adequate sample size gives confidence in findings
^e 20% of included studies were assessed to have a high risk of bias, posing some concerns over the design and/or execution of studies
^f Substantial heterogeneity in findings denotes inconsistency in findings
^g Diversity in the methods and timepoints of adherence measurement increase indirectness of the outcome variable
^h Insufficient sample size per intervention to have confidence in precision of results

ISSN: 1479-5868