Table 1.
Risk of bias and Quality Appraisal assessment.
| Study | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | Risk of Bias Total | Quality Appraisal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baquet et al., (2001) [22] | x | ✓ | NA | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | 4 | 4 |
| Boddy et al., (2010) [34] | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | 3 | 5 |
| Boer et al., (2014) [35] | x | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | 3 | 5 |
| Buchan et al., (2011) [24] | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Buchan et al., (2012) [25] | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Buchan et al., (2013) [23] | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Coute de Araujo et al., (2012) [36] | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | 3 | 5 |
| Impellizzeri (2006) [37] | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | 7 |
| Koubaa et al., (2013) [38] | x | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | 4 | 4 |
| Martin et al., (2015) [27] | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Martin-Smith et al., (2018) [28] | x | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Murphy et al., (2015) [39] | x | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | 3 | 5 |
| Racil et al., (2013) [40] | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | 7 |
| Racil et al., (2016) [41] | ✓ | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 1 | 7 |
| Sandbakk (2013) [42] | x | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | 4 | 4 |
| Sperlich (2011) [43] | x | ✓ | NA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 2 | 6 |
| Starkoff et al., (2015) [44] | ✓ | ✓ | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | x | 3 | 5 |
| Tjonna et al., (2009) [45] | ✓ | ✓ | NA | x | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | x | 3 | 5 |
Note: A = participants were randomly allocated to groups. B = the groups were similar at baseline. C = Blinding of assessor taking primary outcome. D = adequately powered groups. E = Included a non-exercising control or moderate intensity exercise control group. F = High intensity interval training (HIIT) level of intensity included. G = HIIT total time included. H = group × time interaction and effect size.