Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2021
Comparison of Muscle Activity in Three Single-Joint, Hip Extension Exercises in Resistance-Trained Women.
Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relative Strength Does Not Influence the Sticking Region Among Recreational Trained Participants in Squat.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare neuromuscular activation in the gluteus maximus, the biceps femoris and the erector spinae from the Romanian deadlift, the 45-degree Roman chair back extension and the seated machine back extension. Fifteen resistance-trained females performed three repetitions with 6-RM loading in all exercises in a randomized and counterbalanced order. The activation in the whole movement as well as its lower and upper parts were analyzed. The results showed that the Romanian deadlift and the Roman chair back extension activated the gluteus maximus more than the seated machine back extension (94-140%, p < 0.01). For the biceps femoris the Roman chair elicited higher activation compared to both the Romanian deadlift and the seated machine back extension (71-174%). Further, the Romanian deadlift activated the biceps femoris more compared to the seated machine back extension (61%, p < 0.01). The analyses of the different parts of the movement showed that the Roman chair produced higher levels of activation in the upper part for both the gluteus maximus and the biceps femoris, compared to the other exercises. There were no differences in activation of the erector spinae between the three exercises (p = 1.00). In conclusion, both the Roman deadlift and the Roman chair back extension would be preferable to the seated machine back extension in regards to gluteus maximus activation. The Roman chair was superior in activating the biceps femoris compared to the two other exercises. All three exercises are appropriate selections for activating the lower back muscles. For overall lower limb activation, the Roman chair was the best exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.