Home > DARE Reviews > Interval versus continuous training in...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-.

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews.

Interval versus continuous training in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Review published: 2010.

Bibliographic details: Beauchamp MK, Nonoyama M, Goldstein RS, Hill K, Dolmage TE, Mathur S, Brooks D.  Interval versus continuous training in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review. Thorax 2010; 65(2): 157-164. [PubMed: 19996334]

Quality assessment

This review found there were no differences between interval training and continuous training on outcomes related to exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Some shortcomings mean that making judgements about the reliability of the authors' conclusions is difficult. Full critical summary

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interval exercise has gained recent attention as a possible means of achieving greater physiological training effects compared with continuous exercise. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare the effects of interval versus continuous training on peak oxygen uptake, peak power, 6 minute walk test (6MWT) distance and health-related quality of life in individuals with COPD.

METHODS: Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of interval versus continuous training in patients with COPD were identified after searches of six databases and reference lists of appropriate studies in May 2009. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. Weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random effects model for measures of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life.

RESULTS: Eight randomised controlled trials, with a total of 388 patients with COPD, met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found for peak power (WMD 1 W, 95% CI -1 to 3) or peak oxygen uptake (WMD -0.04 l/min, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05) between interval and continuous training. The WMD for the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnoea score was -0.2 units (95% CI -0.5 to 0.0). There was no difference in 6MWT distance between groups (WMD 4 m, 95% CI -15 to 23).

CONCLUSIONS: Interval and continuous training modalities did not differ in their effect on measures of exercise capacity or health-related quality of life. Interval training may be considered as an alternative to continuous training in patients with varying degrees of COPD severity.

CRD has determined that this article meets the DARE scientific quality criteria for a systematic review.

Copyright © 2012 University of York.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...