ArticlePhysiological reports2019
Sex comparisons of agonist and antagonist muscle electromyographic parameters during two different submaximal isometric fatiguing tasks.
Article in Physiological reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Sex comparisons of agonist and antagonist muscle electromyographic parameters during two different submaximal isometric fatiguing tasks.Physiological reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine the task failure time of the force- and position-based submaximal elbow flexion fatiguing tasks for both sexes, twelve men and eight women visited the laboratory for two separate experimental occasions. During the experiment, they pulled against a rigid restraint for the force task and maintained a constant elbow joint angle to support an equivalent inertial load for the position task. For both fatiguing tasks (50% of the isometric strength at the elbow joint angle of 135 degree), the task failure time, along with the surface electromyographic (EMG) amplitude and mean frequency (MNF) were measured. The average failure time was longer for the force task than that for the position task (sexes combined: 39.6 ± 16.6 sec vs. 33.9 ± 14.9 sec, P = 0.033). In addition, men were overall less fatigable than women (tasks combined: 42.0 ± 14.7 sec vs. 28.7 ± 10.3 sec, P = 0.020). The multiple regression analyses showed that the task failure time in women was solely predicted by the rate of change of the triceps EMG MNF. Thus, more fatigability of women in this study was likely due to the quicker fatiguing rate of the antagonist triceps brachii muscle. Different from most previous studies that have used 90-degree elbow joint angle, the current 135-degree joint angle setup might have created a situation where greater muscle activity from the related muscles (e.g., the antagonist) were required for women than for men to stabilize the joint, thereby resulting in a shorter task failure time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.