Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11929356›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2002

Anabolic steroids: a review for the clinician.

Eric C Kutscher, Brian C Lund, Paul J Perry

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Dietary Intake of Competitive Bodybuilders.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sports participation and myocarditis: Influence of sport types on disease severity.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021
    Article
  6. Yeast as a promising heterologous host for steroid bioproduction.Journal of industrial microbiology & biotechnology · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Eric C KutscherWestern Missouri Mental Health Center, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA. eckutscher@yahoo.com
Brian C Lund
Paul J Perry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The number of athletes self-administering ergogenic pharmacological agents to increase their competitive edge continues to be a problem. Most athletes using anabolic steroids (AS) have acquired a crude pharmacological database regarding these drugs. Their opinions regarding steroids have been derived from their subjective experiences and anecdotal information. For this reason, traditional warnings regarding the lack of efficacy and potential dangers of steroid misuse are disregarded. A common widely held opinion among bodybuilders is that the anabolic steroid experts are the athletic gurus who for years have utilised themselves as the experimental participants and then dispensed their empirical findings. This review will address the common anabolic steroid misconceptions held by many of today's athletes by providing an evaluation of the scientific literature related to AS in athletic performance.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnabolic AgentsDoping in SportsFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalTask Performance and AnalysisWeight LiftingAnabolic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.