It is particularly important to emphasize that, limited by the number, sample size, and methodological quality of the included studies

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the inline gaps and discussion and abstract of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2024 and 2026, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 22 times in total.

Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps

• High-intensity interval training and continuous glucose monitoring-derived glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2026) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi

  First, the available evidence was limited by small sample sizes, and most included studies were small trials. However, because the available evidence remains limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneity in study design and intervention pro- tocols, and the generally low certainty of evidence for several key outcomes, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously and not overgeneralized.

  generalinline gapsevidence 5/5
  Keywords: evidence small available limited sample sizes first included trials remains heterogeneity design intervention tocols generally
• A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of walking training on cardiorespiratory fitness in cancer patients (2026) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi

  It is particularly important to emphasize that, limited by the number, sample size, and methodological quality of the included studies, all results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted as exploratory rather than confirmatory evidence, and its conclusions require further valida- tion through subsequent large-scale, high-quality studies.

  generaldiscussionevidence 5/5
  Keywords: quality particularly important emphasize limited number sample size methodological included meta interpreted exploratory rather rmatory
• Comparisons of approaches to pelvic floor muscle training for urinary incontinence in women (2024) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · cited 22× · doi

  Limitations in the evidence Four main factors influenced our certainty in the evidence: 44 trials were at unclear or high risk of selection bias; data were sparse in some subgroups with few trials, trials that did not measure outcomes of interest, or did not report usable data; results were inconsistent; and many trials were small (imprecise).

  generalabstractevidence 5/5
  Keywords: trials evidence limitations four main factors influenced certainty unclear high risk selection bias sparse subgroups

Questions about this gap