Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31506904›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2019

The Acute Neuromuscular Responses to Cluster Set Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Christopher Latella, Wei-Peng Teo, Eric J Drinkwater, Kristina Kendall, G Gregory Haff

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 8 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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Christopher LatellaCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Health and Medical Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia. c.latella@ecu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-9671
Wei-Peng TeoPhysical Education and Sports Science Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Eric J DrinkwaterCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Health and Medical Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.
Kristina KendallCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Health and Medical Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.
G Gregory HaffCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Health and Medical Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCluster sets (CSs) are a popular resistance training (RT) strategy categorised by short rest periods implemented between single or groups of repetitions. However, evidence supporting the effectiveness of CSs on acute intra-session neuromuscular performance is still equivocal.

objectiveThe objective of this investigation was to determine the efficacy of a single session of CSs to attenuate losses in force, velocity and power compared to traditional set (TS) training.

methodsScreening consisted of a systematic search of EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Inclusion criteria were (1) measured one or more of mean/peak force, velocity or power; (2) implemented CSs in comparison to TSs; (3) an acute design, or part thereof; and (4) published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal. Raw data (mean ± standard deviation) were extracted from included studies and converted into standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

resultsTwenty-five studies were used to calculate SMD ± 95% CI. Peak (SMD = 0.815, 95% CI 0.105-1.524, p = 0.024) and mean (SMD = 0.863, 95% CI 0.319-1.406, p = 0.002) velocity, peak (SMD = 0.356, 95% CI 0.057-0.655, p = 0.019) and mean (SMD = 0.692, 95% CI 0.395-0.990, p < 0.001) power, and peak force (SMD = 0.306, 95% CI - 0.028 to 0.584, p = 0.031) favoured CS. Subgroup analyses demonstrated an overall effect for CS across loads (SMD = 0.702, 95% CI 0.548-0.856, p < 0.001), included exercises (SMD = 0.664, 95% CI 0.413-0.916, p < 0.001), experience levels (SMD = 0.790, 95% CI 0.500-1.080, p < 0.001) and CS structures (SMD = 0.731, 95% CI 0.567-0.894, p < 0.001) with no difference within subgroups.

conclusionCSs are a useful strategy to attenuate the loss in velocity, power and peak force during RT and should be used to maintain neuromuscular performance, especially when kinetic outcomes are emphasised. However, it remains unclear if the benefits translate to improved performance across all RT exercises, between sexes and across the lifespan.

Indexed as

ExerciseHumansMuscle FatigueMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance Training

Identifiers

PMID31506904
PMCPMC6851217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.