High Intensity Interval Training and Arterial Hypertension: Quality of Reporting

Bünzen C, Oberbeck K, Ketelhut S, Weisser B

Question

How completely do randomized trials of HIIT for arterial hypertension report exercise-intervention details, and how does HIIT reporting compare with moderate-intensity training reporting?

Summary

This paper did not test a new HIIT program. It reviewed nine randomized trials of HIIT for adults with at least high-normal blood pressure and found reporting quality was incomplete: HIIT protocols were described better than moderate-intensity comparators, but adverse events, adherence, motivation, and instructor adherence were often poorly reported.

Methodology

Adults with at least high-normal blood pressure in included RCTs
718 participants.
Varied.
15-80 minutes across included interventions.
2-3 sessions/week across included interventions.
6-16 weeks across included interventions.
Reporting-quality review of randomized controlled trials using the CERT checklist
Reporting quality, Safety reporting, and Adherence reporting were tracked.

Outcomes

Reporting

HIIT interventions averaged 62.6% of CERT items adequately reported, better than moderate-intensity training at 49.2%, but still incomplete.

HIIT 62.6%, 95% CI 55.4-69.7; approximately 12 of 19 CERT items.

Mixed

Dose

Exercise dose was adequately reported in most included studies.

8 of 9 studies.

Improved

Safety reporting

Adverse-event reporting was rare, which the authors considered particularly unfavorable for high-intensity exercise.

1 of 9 studies reported adverse-event information.

Safety concern

Adherence reporting

Adherence was reported in just over half of included studies, while instructor adherence was not reported.

Adherence reporting 56%; instructor adherence 0%.

Mixed

Insights

Use this as evidence that hypertension HIIT studies often lack enough safety and adherence reporting for direct protocol reuse.
Do not convert absent adverse-event reporting into a safety claim.
For evidence ingestion, store reporting completeness separately from intervention efficacy.

Limitations

Reporting-quality review rather than primary efficacy trial
Only nine included RCTs
No single HIIT protocol
Sparse adverse-event reporting in source trials
Language restrictions

Safety

This review found adverse-event information in only 1 of 9 included hypertension HIIT RCTs.
One myocardial infarction at home was reported in a moderate-intensity comparator group in one included study; the review stated the sample was too small to estimate safety.