Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881748›Full record

Trial reportSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

A Retrospective Analysis to Determine Whether Training-Induced Changes in Muscle Thickness Mediate Changes in Muscle Strength.

Matthew B Jessee, Scott J Dankel, John P Bentley, Jeremy P Loenneke

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Blood Flow Restriction Training in Hemodialysis Patients: Clinical Benefits, Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Hemodialysis international. International Symposium on Home Hemodialysis · 2026
    Review
  4. 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.

Matthew B JesseeApplied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise, Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Scott J DankelExercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.
John P BentleyDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Jeremy P LoennekeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise, Science, and Recreation Management, The University of Mississippi, 231 Turner Center, University, MS, 38677, USA. jploenne@olemiss.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the role of muscle thickness changes on changes in strength following 6 weeks of unaccustomed resistance training, via retrospective analysis.

methods151 participants completed 6 weeks of no intervention (CONTROL), one-repetition maximum training (1RM-TRAIN), or traditional resistance training (TRAD-TRAIN). Groups were assigned by covariate adaptive randomization. 1RM-TRAIN and TRAD-TRAIN performed elbow flexion exercise on the dominant arm 3 times/week. One-repetition maximum strength and muscle thickness (B-mode ultrasound at 50, 60, and 70% of the anterior upper arm) were assessed pre- and post-training. Direct and indirect effects on strength via each training modality were quantified relative to CONTROL using indicator-coded, change-score mediation analyses for each muscle thickness site. Values are presented as regression coefficients (95% CI).

resultsThe effect of 1RM-TRAIN on muscle thickness was greater than CONTROL for 60% [0.09 (0.01, 0.17) cm] and 70% [0.09 (0.01,0.18) cm] models. All muscle thickness changes for TRAD-TRAIN were greater than CONTROL: 50% [0.24 (0.16, 0.33) cm], 60% [0.25 (0.17, 0.33) cm], 70% [0.23 (0.14, 0.32) cm]. All direct effects on strength were greater for 1RM-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [1.90 (1.21, 2.58) kg], 60% [1.89 (1.19, 2.58) kg], 70% [1.81 (1.12, 2.51) kg]; and TRAD-TRAIN versus CONTROL: 50% [2.04 (1.29, 2.80) kg], 60% [1.98 (1.22, 2.75) kg], 70% [1.79 (1.05, 2.53) kg]. Compared to CONTROL, there was no indication of an effect of 1RM-TRAIN on strength through muscle thickness (i.e., indirect effect) for 50% [- 0.03 (- 0.17, 0.10)], 60% [- 0.01 (- 0.17, 0.17)], or 70% [0.07 (- 0.09, 0.28)] sites, nor of TRAD-TRAIN for 50% [- 0.11 (- 0.48,0.29)], 60% [- 0.04 (- 0.42, 0.40)], and 70% sites [0.17 (- 0.23,0.58)].

conclusionTraining-induced changes in muscle thickness do not appear to appreciably mediate training-induced changes in the strength of untrained individuals during the first 6 weeks of training.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalResistance TrainingArmHumansMuscle StrengthRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID33881748

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.