Effects of concurrent training sequence on cardiometabolic risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors

Zongxiang Li, Cencen Liu, Yanzhong Liu

Published in

Endocrine. Volume 91. Issue 1. Sep 28, 2026. Epub Sep 28, 2026.

Abstract

Concurrent training (CT), combining aerobic and resistance exercise, is recommended for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether the sequence of CT-aerobic training followed by resistance training (CART) or the reverse order (CRAT)-influences cardiometabolic outcomes remains unclear. This study compared the effects of CT sequences on cardiometabolic risk factors in T2DM using network meta-analysis (NMA).
An NMA of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to January 2026 was conducted using five databases. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Data were analysed using Stata 16.0.
Twenty-seven RCTs (n = 965) were included. Both CART and CRAT significantly improved body fat percentage, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein compared with control (all p < 0.05). Based on unadjusted SUCRA probabilities, CRAT ranked highest for body composition, glycaemic control, insulin resistance, and most lipid outcomes, whereas CART ranked highest for systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Sensitivity analyses indicated that intervention duration influenced rankings for body composition, whereas participant sex influenced rankings for blood pressure. Meta‑regression further suggested that participant age might modify the relative efficacy of these sequences for BMI, HbA1c, and blood pressure, warranting cautious interpretation of unadjusted rankings.
Both CT sequences improve cardiometabolic risk factors in T2DM. Although SUCRA rankings varied across outcomes, these findings are exploratory and do not establish superiority of either sequence. Meta-regression suggested that participant characteristics and training factors may partly account for ranking differences. Given the non-significant direct comparisons and low certainty of evidence according to CINeMA, current evidence does not support a definitive recommendation for one training sequence over the other. Future head-to-head trials are warranted.
PROSPERO CRD420261293127. Registered 25 January 2026.

PMID:
42804093
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 29 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.