Risk of bias and reporting practices in studies comparing VO2max responses to sprint interval vs. continuous training: A systematic review and meta-analysis

•Our systematic review was the first to evaluate the risk of bias and quality of reporting in studies comparing maximal oxygen uptake responses to sprint interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous training.•We found an overall unclear risk of bias owing to poor reporting quality in the 27 included studies. For example, only 2 studies (7%) adequately reported methods for random sequence generation, and no study reported information about allocation concealment.•This overall unclear risk of bias warrants cautious interpretation of our meta-analysis, which found, as have previously published meta-analyses, that sprint interval training and moderate-intensity continuous training similarly improve oxygen uptake.