Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33475986›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Chronic Effects of Altering Resistance Training Set Configurations Using Cluster Sets: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Timothy B Davies, Derek L Tran, Clorinda M Hogan, G Gregory Haff, Christopher Latella

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 37 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Metabolomics analyses and physical interventions in soccer: a systematic review.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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.

Timothy B DaviesDiscipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. timothy.davies@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3798-2445
Derek L TranDiscipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3274-363X
Clorinda M HoganDiscipline of Exercise and Sport Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0293-263X
G Gregory HaffSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0676-7750
Christopher LatellaSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-9671

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe acute responses to cluster set resistance training (RT) have been demonstrated. However, as compared to traditional sets, the effect of cluster sets on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations remains unclear.

objectiveTo compare the effects of RT programs implementing cluster and traditional set configurations on muscular and neuromuscular adaptations.

methodsSystematic searches of Embase, Scopus, Medline and SPORTDiscus were conducted. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized or non-randomized comparative studies; (2) publication in English; (3) participants of all age groups; (4) participants free of any medical condition or injury; (5) cluster set intervention; (6) comparison intervention utilizing a traditional set configuration; (7) intervention length ≥ three weeks and (8) at least one measure of changes in strength/force/torque, power, velocity, hypertrophy or muscular endurance. Raw data (mean ± SD or range) were extracted from included studies. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

resultsTwenty-nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. No differences between cluster and traditional set configurations were found for strength (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.21 to 0.11, p = 0.56), power output (ES = 0.02 ± 0.10, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.20, p = 0.86), velocity (ES = 0.15 ± 0.13, 95% CI - 0.10 to 0.41, p = 0.24), hypertrophy (ES = - 0.05 ± 0.14, 95% CI - 0.32 to 0.23, p = 0.73) or endurance (ES = - 0.07 ± 0.18, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.29, p = 0.70) adaptations. Moreover, no differences were observed when training volume, cluster set model, training status, body parts trained or exercise type were considered.

conclusionCollectively, both cluster and traditional set configurations demonstrate equal effectiveness to positively induce muscular and neuromuscular adaptation(s). However, cluster set configurations may achieve such adaptations with less fatigue development during RT which may be an important consideration across various exercise settings and stages of periodized RT programs.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdaptation, PhysiologicalExerciseHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMuscle, SkeletalMuscle Strength

Identifiers

PMID33475986

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.