Cited by 64Physical Activity and HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Comparison between different types of exercise training in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and network metanalysis of randomized controlled trials

Mannucci, Edoardo, Bonifazi, Allegra, Monami, Matteo·2021·Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases

Abstract

Aim Aim of the present meta-analysis and network metanalysis (NMA) is the assessment of the effects of physical exercise on glucose control and cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes. Data synthesis This metanalysis includes all available trials exploring the effects of different exercise modalities in type 2 diabetes, with a duration of ≥3 months. The standardized difference in means (SDM) with 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated. Data were analyzed using MetaXL and Rev Man 5.0. Primary endpoint was the effect of exercise versus no exercise on HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at endpoint. Secondary endpoints were body weight and fat, waist circumference, and blood pressure. A comparison of different exercise training modalities (aerobic, resistance and combined) for the same endpoints was also performed, choosing 'no exercise' as the reference for indirect comparisons. We included 25 trials fulfilling all inclusion criteria. Physical exercise versus no exercise produced a small, but significant, improvement of HbA1c, body fat, and systolic blood pressure at endpoint (-0.3 [-0.1;-0.4]%, -1.44 [-2.22, -0.66]%, and -5.6 [-9.5, -1.6] mmHg, respectively). Combined, supervised aerobic and resistance exercise were associated with a significantly greater reduction of HbA1c (SDM, -0.4 [-0.6;-0.3], -0.2 [-0.4;-0.1], and -0.2 [-0.3;-0.1]%, respectively), but not of FPG, in comparison with no exercise. Conclusions Physical exercise produces small, but detectable, advantages on glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors and should be suggested in type 2 diabetes. Combined aerobic/resistance training seems to be superior to aerobic training alone, but differences are small and the reliability of supporting evidence limited.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.numecd.2021.02.030

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No previous meta-analysis has found the optimal type or dose of physical activity to control HbA1c in type 2 diabetes.

    “none found the optimal type or dose of physical activity to verify the validity and reliability of these recommendations”
  • Two meta-analyses of 12 and 25 studies showed trivial or no differences in A1c between aerobic and resistance exercise groups.

    “two meta-analyses of 12 (595 participants) and 25 studies (2578 participants), respectively, showed trivial or no differences in A1c between aerobic and resistance exercise groups.”
  • A meta-analysis of 25 studies found combined aerobic and resistance training decreased A1c by 0.4%, while aerobic and resistance training individually decreased A1c by 0.2%.

    “a metaanalysis of 25 studies identified a decrease in A1c of 0.4% with combined aerobic and resistance training and a decrease of 0.2% for aerobic and resistance training individually.”
  • Multiple studies show hemoglobin A1c improvements of 0.5% to 0.7% with combined aerobic and resistance training.

    “Multiple studies have shown significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c (0.5-0.7%) of patients with T2DM through a combination of aerobic and resistance training.”
  • Resistance training can demand more equipment, facilities, and trainer involvement, potentially reducing its accessibility.

    “Resistance training may require more equipment, facilities, and involvement of professional trainers, which could impact accessibility.36”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mannucci, E., Bonifazi, A., & Monami, M.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi (IT)
  • University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Monami, Matteo
Venue
Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
31
Issue
7
Pages
1985-1992
ISSN
0939-4753 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3139466974
Cited by
64
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Merck
  • Novartis
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
type 2 diabetes, exercise training, aerobic exercise, resistance training, concurrent training, glycemic control, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, cardiovascular risk factors, fat mass, waist circumference, blood pressure, supervised exercise
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Glycemic Control, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Exercise Therapy, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Biomarkers, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Resistance Training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review