Abstract P205: Quality of Reporting and Methods of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Addressing High-intensity Interval Training Efficacy on Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Introduction: The efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for cardiorespiratory fitness (VO 2 max) has been increasingly investigated in different populations, resulting in efforts to summarize intervention effects through generation of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SRMAs). Despite of many available SRMAs, the quality of methods and reporting of these syntheses is still unknown. Thus, we aimed to quantify it by a meta-epidemiological design, in order to cover all eligible SRMAs. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that SRMAs would have low quality of reporting and methodology, based on previous findings on overall biomedical literature. Methods: We searched four electronic databases, grey-literature, and hand-searched relevant SRMAs. Eligibility criteria were any SRMA having HIIT/SIT on VO2max as one of addressed meta-analysis from individual studies including apparently healthy subjects as well as patients with cerebrovascular (stroke) or cardiovascular (CVD) diseases (coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart attack, and peripheral artery disease). No restriction was made regarding publication status or language. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were done in duplicate and discordances were solved by consensus. We used 14 items adapted from PRISMA and AMSTAR tools to assess methodological, quantitative and reporting practices in SRMAs. This SR is registered (CRD42017067269) and all documentation and raw data are available at https://github.com/lhelal/srma-hiit.git and osf.io/6xzyf. This abstract is the first report regarding our final analysis. Results: From 141 retrieved titles, 47 duplicates were excluded and 94 full-texts were assessed, resulting in 13 eligible SRMAs. Of these, 7 SRMAs were on CVD and 6 on apparently healthy patients. Median AMSTAR score was 4/11 (median ± IQR, 4 ± 2). Regarding reporting, none of the SRMAs reported registry (0%), 39% (5/13) self-reported as in accordance to PRISMA, 8/13 (62%) reported disclosure status, 46% (6/13) reported full eligibility and extraction process and 100% (13/13) referred to a comparator group. For methodology, database median number was 4 (4 ± 5), where 92% (12/13) restricted to English and 61.5% (8/13) restricted to publication status on their primary study eligibility criteria. Moreover, 69% (9/13) had a comparator group, 31% (4/13) provided full-search strategy that allows replication and 62% (8/13) analyzed primary study risk of bias. Conclusions: Only a low to modest proportion of SRMAs followed practices to provide adequate literature coverage, methodological transparency and assessment of potential biases. Since such syntheses are useful to decision making regarding exercise interventions, increased adherence to approaches that enhance methodological and reporting quality is warranted from authors and journal editors.