Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31820374›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

The Effect of Resistance Training in Women on Dynamic Strength and Muscular Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Amanda D Hagstrom, Paul W Marshall, Mark Halaki, Daniel A Hackett

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda D HagstromSchool of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. m.hagstrom@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-9216
Paul W MarshallSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mark HalakiPhysical Activity, Lifestyle, Ageing and Wellbeing Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia.
Daniel A HackettPhysical Activity, Lifestyle, Ageing and Wellbeing Faculty Research Group, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUUNSW Sydney · AUWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of resistance training (RT) on adaptations in muscular strength and hypertrophy has never been examined in an exclusively female synthesis of the literature.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to systematically review the literature on female adaptations to RT, characterising the effect in terms of muscular strength and hypertrophy; (2) to distinguish the individual effects of intervention duration, frequency, and intensity on these adaptations via sub-analysis; (3) to draw evidence-based conclusions regarding training expectations in female populations.

methodsThree electronic databases were searched using terms related to RT combined with females or women. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken to estimate the effect of RT on muscular strength and hypertrophy in females. Possible predictors that may have influenced training-related effects (e.g., training intensity and volume) were explored using univariate analyses.

resultsThe systematic search identified 14,067 articles of which a total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were eligible. Upper body strength was assessed in 15 studies, lower body strength in 19 studies, and muscular hypertrophy in 15 studies. Study duration lasted between 4 weeks and 12 months. Large-effect sizes were found for upper body strength (Hedges' g = 1.70; p < 0.001) and lower body strength (Hedges' g = 1.40; p < 0.001). Following use of the Trim and Fill method (due to presence of publication bias), a large effect still remained for upper body strength (Hedges' g = 1.07), although a medium effect was found for lower body strength (Hedges' g = 0.52). A medium effect was found for muscular hypertrophy (g = 0.52, p = 0.002). Sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variables "training frequency" and "training volume" significantly influenced lower body muscular strength (p < 0.001). "Training frequency" and "sets per exercise" moderated the RT effects on upper body strength (p < 0.01). No moderating variables were found to significantly influence muscular hypertrophy. A trend for a moderating effect on upper body strength was found for "age of participants" (p = 0.08), whereby younger participants experienced a greater effect. A moderating effect was also observed where supervised training had a larger influence on the adaptation of lower body strength (p = 0.05) compared with unsupervised training. Methodological quality for the studies included in the review was found to be moderate.

conclusionsRT elicits large improvements in muscular strength and hypertrophy in healthy adult females. Training volume and frequency appear to be important variables that influence muscular strength.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingAdultFemaleHumansMuscle, Skeletal

Identifiers

PMID31820374
OpenAlexW2991674274

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.