Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33405190›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Periodization: Variation in the Definition and Discrepancies in Study Design.

Ryo Kataoka, Ecaterina Vasenina, Jeremy Loenneke, Samuel L Buckner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ongoing Bidirectional Feedback between Planning and Assessment in Educational Contexts: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Periodization and Programming for Individual 400 m Medley Swimmers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
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.

Ryo KataokaUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Ecaterina VaseninaUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Jeremy LoennekeDepartment of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, Kevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Samuel L BucknerUSF Muscle Lab, Exercise Science Program, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA. slbuckner@usf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-7356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past several decades, periodization has been widely accepted as the gold standard of training theory. Within the literature, there are numerous definitions for periodization, which makes it difficult to study. When examining the proposed definitions and related studies on periodization, problems arise in the following domains: (1) periodization has been proposed to serve as the macro-management of the training process concerning the annual plan, yet research on long-term effects is scarce; (2) periodization and programming are being used interchangeably in research; and (3) training is not periodized alongside other stressors such as sport (i.e., only resistance training is being performed without the inclusion of sport). Overall, the state of the literature suggests that the inability to define periodization makes the statement of its superiority difficult to experimentally test. This paper discusses the proposed definitions of periodization and the study designs which have been employed to examine the concept.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingSportsAdaptation, PhysiologicalHumansMuscle Strength

Identifiers

PMID33405190

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.