Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32034703›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Effects of Resistance Training Movement Pattern and Velocity on Isometric Muscular Rate of Force Development: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Meta-regression.

Anthony J Blazevich, Cody J Wilson, Pedro E Alcaraz, Jacobo A Rubio-Arias

Open access · greenAbstract 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 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Effects of Priming with Light vs. Heavy Loads on Weightlifting Performance.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anthony J BlazevichCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia. a.blazevich@ecu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-1614
Cody J WilsonCentre for Exercise and Sports Science Research (CESSR), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia.
Pedro E AlcarazUCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9792-6656
Jacobo A Rubio-AriasUCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Catholic University San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2496-2426
Edith Cowan University · AUUniversidad Católica de Murcia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMuscular rate of force development (RFD) is positively influenced by resistance training. However, the effects of movement patterns and velocities of training exercises are unknown.

objectivesTo determine the effects of velocity, the intent for fast force production, and movement pattern of training exercises on the improvement in isometric RFD from chronic resistance training.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to 18 September, 2018. Meta-regression and meta-analytic methods were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMD ± 95% confidence intervals) to examine effects of movement pattern similarity (between training and test exercises; specific vs. non-specific) and movement speed (fast vs. slow vs. slow with intent for fast force production) for RFD calculated within different time intervals.

resultsThe search yielded 1443 articles, of which 54 met the inclusion criteria (59 intervention groups). Resistance training increased RFD measured to both early (e.g., 50 ms; standardized mean difference [95% CI] 0.58 [0.40, 0.75]) and later (e.g., 200 ms; 0.39 [0.25, 0.52]) times from contraction onset, as well as maximum RFD (RFD

conclusionsResistance training can evoke significant increases in RFD. For maximum (peak) RFD, the use of faster movement speeds, the intention to produce rapid force irrespective of actual movement speed, and similarity between training and testing movement patterns evoke the greatest improvements. In contrast to expectation, current evidence indicates a between-sex difference in response to training; however, a lack of data in women prevents robust analysis, and this should be a target of future research. Of interest from a training program design perspective was that RFD improvements were greatest within the first weeks of training, with less ongoing improvement (or a reduction in RFD) with longer training, particularly when training velocity was slow or there was a lack of intent for fast force production.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthFemaleHumansMaleMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalResistance Training

Identifiers

PMID32034703
OpenAlexW3004527403

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.