# High Intensity Interval Training and Arterial Hypertension: Quality of Reporting

PMID: 40012908
Journal: Sports medicine international open
Published: 2025
Authors: 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.

## Population

- Adults with at least high-normal blood pressure in included RCTs
- Sample size: 718
- Age: Mean 51.84 years
- Health status: At least high-normal blood pressure or hypertension

## Methodology

- Reporting-quality review of randomized controlled trials using the CERT checklist
- Literature review of RCT reports

## Protocol

- HIIT protocols in hypertension RCTs.
- Modality: Varied.
- Session duration: 15-80 minutes across included interventions.
- Frequency: 2-3 sessions/week across included interventions.
- Program length: 6-16 weeks across included interventions.
- Progression: Progression and tailoring were reported as adequately described.
- Moderate-intensity training and non-exercise controls.
- Modality: Moderate endurance training or non-exercise control.

## Outcomes

### Reporting
Status: mixed
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.

### Dose
Status: improved
Exercise dose was adequately reported in most included studies.

8 of 9 studies.

### Safety reporting
Status: worse/safety concern
Adverse-event reporting was rare, which the authors considered particularly unfavorable for high-intensity exercise.

1 of 9 studies reported adverse-event information.

### Adherence reporting
Status: mixed
Adherence was reported in just over half of included studies, while instructor adherence was not reported.

Adherence reporting 56%; instructor adherence 0%.

## Practical 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 And Adherence

- 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.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40012908/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2493-9466) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11852686/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.