Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29541965›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

Effects and Dose-Response Relationships of Motor Imagery Practice on Strength Development in Healthy Adult Populations: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Armin H Paravlic, Maamer Slimani, David Tod, Uros Marusic, Zoran Milanovic, Rado Pisot

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
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

6 authors.

Armin H ParavlicScience and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, University of Primorska, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000, Koper, Slovenia. armin.paravlic@zrs-kp.si.
Maamer SlimaniResearch Laboratory "Sports Performance Optimization", National Center of Medicine and Science in Sports (CNMSS), Tunis, Tunisia.
David TodSchool of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Uros MarusicScience and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, University of Primorska, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000, Koper, Slovenia.
Zoran MilanovicScience and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, University of Primorska, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000, Koper, Slovenia.
Rado PisotScience and Research Centre, Institute for Kinesiology Research, University of Primorska, Garibaldijeva 1, 6000, Koper, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor imagery (MI), a mental simulation of a movement without overt muscle contraction, has been largely used to improve general motor tasks. However, the effects of MI practice on maximal voluntary strength (MVS) remain equivocal.

objectivesThe aims of this meta-analysis were to (1) estimate whether MI practice intervention can meaningfully improve MVS in healthy adults; (2) compare the effects of MI practice on MVS with its combination with physical practice (MI-C), and with physical practice (PP) training alone; and (3) investigate the dose-response relationships of MI practice. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY: Seven electronic databases were searched up to April 2017. Initially 717 studies were identified; however, after evaluation of the study characteristics, data from 13 articles involving 370 participants were extracted. The meta-analysis was completed on MVS as the primary parameter. In addition, parameters associated with training volume, training intensity, and time spent training were used to investigate dose-response relationships.

resultsMI practice moderately improved MVS. When compared to conventional PP, effects were of small benefit in favour of PP. MI-C when compared to PP showed unclear effects. MI practice produced moderate effects in both upper and lower extremities on MVS. The cortical representation area of the involved muscles did not modify the effects. Meta-regression analysis revealed that (a) a training period of 4 weeks, (b) a frequency of three times per week, (c) two to three sets per single session, (d) 25 repetitions per single set, and (e) single session duration of 15 min were associated with enhanced improvements in muscle strength following MI practice. Similar dose-response relationships were observed following MI and PP.

conclusionsThe present meta-analysis demonstrates that compared to a no-exercise control group of healthy adults, MI practice increases MVS, but less than PP. These findings suggest that MI practice could be considered as a substitute or additional training tool to preserve muscle function when athletes are not exposed to maximal training intensities.

Indexed as

ExerciseAdultAthletic PerformanceFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImagery, PsychotherapyMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance Training

Identifiers

PMID29541965

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.