You · Frontiers in public health 2021 · bibliometric analysis · n=572

Bibliometric Review to Explore Emerging High-Intensity Interval Training in Health Promotion: A New Century Picture.

Cited 126 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of literature metadata (Level 4 by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)

PubMed 34368063 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.697633 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of original publications on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in health promotion published between 2001 and 2020. Data were retrieved from the Science Citation Index Expanded via the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace and VOSviewer software were used to map and visualize networks of countries, institutions, journals, authors, references, and keywords.

What was found

A total of 572 publications were analyzed, demonstrating rapid annual growth. The United States was the most productive country (107 publications), and the University of Exeter was the leading institution (18 publications). The European Journal of Applied Physiology published the largest volume of articles, while Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise had the highest co-citation count. AR Barker was identified as the most productive author, and MJ Gibala as the most cited. Primary research themes and hotspots focused on metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, and musculoskeletal diseases, alongside emerging focus areas in prevention, molecular mechanisms, and mental health.

Why it matters

This review maps two decades of literature on HIIT in health promotion, highlighting key collaborative networks and identifying shifts from basic exercise physiology toward disease prevention, rehabilitation, and cognitive health.

Limits

The analysis is restricted to a single database (Web of Science Core Collection) and English-language publications indexed within a specific timeframe, risking exclusion of relevant literature. As a bibliometric study, it measures publication volume and citation metrics rather than evaluating the clinical efficacy, safety, or methodological quality of the included HIIT interventions.

Cited by