Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681399›Full record

ReviewSports medicine - open2020

Test-Retest Reliability of the One-Repetition Maximum (1RM) Strength Assessment: a Systematic Review.

Jozo Grgic, Bruno Lazinica, Brad J Schoenfeld, Zeljko Pedisic

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine - open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 188 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
188citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
26.5field-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

188 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 335 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. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Efficacy of resistance training during adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in cancer care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

128 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 3 countries.

Jozo GrgicInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia.
Bruno LazinicaFaculty of Education, Department of Kinesiology, J.J. Strossmayer University, Osijek, Croatia.
Brad J SchoenfeldDepartment of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, NY, USA.
Zeljko PedisicInstitute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. zeljko.pedisic@vu.edu.au.
Victoria University · AULehman College · USUniversity of Osijek · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe test-retest reliability of the one-repetition maximum (1RM) test varies across different studies. Given the inconsistent findings, it is unclear what the true reliability of the 1RM test is, and to what extent it is affected by measurement-related factors, such as exercise selection for the test, the number of familiarization trials and resistance training experience.

objectivesThe aim of this paper was to review studies that investigated the reliability of the 1RM test of muscular strength and summarize their findings.

methodsThe PRISMA guidelines were followed for this systematic review. Searches for studies were conducted through eight databases. Studies that investigated test-retest reliability of the 1RM test and presented intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and/or coefficient of variation (CV) were included. The COSMIN checklist was used for the assessment of the methodological quality of the included studies.

resultsAfter reviewing 1024 search records, 32 studies (pooled n = 1595) on test-retest reliability of 1RM assessment were found. All the studies were of moderate or excellent methodological quality. Test-retest ICCs ranged from 0.64 to 0.99 (median ICC = 0.97), where 92% of ICCs were ≥ 0.90, and 97% of ICCs were ≥ 0.80. The CVs ranged from 0.5 to 12.1% (median CV = 4.2%). ICCs were generally high (≥ 0.90), and most CVs were low (< 10%) for 1RM tests: (1) among those without and for those with some resistance training experience, (2) conducted with or without familiarization sessions, (3) with single-joint or multi-joint exercises, (4) for upper- and lower-body strength assessment, (5) among females and males, and (6) among young to middle-aged adults and among older adults. Most studies did not find systematic changes in test results between the trials.

conclusionsBased on the results of this review, it can be concluded that the 1RM test generally has good to excellent test-retest reliability, regardless of resistance training experience, number of familiarization sessions, exercise selection, part of the body assessed (upper vs. lower body), and sex or age of participants. Researchers and practitioners, therefore, can use the 1RM test as a reliable test of muscular strength.

Identifiers

PMID32681399
PMCPMC7367986
OpenAlexW3042851186

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.