Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34542869›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Accuracy in Predicting Repetitions to Task Failure in Resistance Exercise: A Scoping Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis.

Israel Halperin, Tomer Malleron, Itai Har-Nir, Patroklos Androulakis-Korakakis, Milo Wolf, James Fisher, James Steele

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Israel HalperinSchool of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. ihalperin@tauex.tau.ac.il.
Tomer MalleronSchool of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Itai Har-NirSchool of Public Health, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Patroklos Androulakis-KorakakisFaculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.
Milo WolfFaculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.
James FisherFaculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.
James SteeleFaculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrescribing repetitions relative to task failure is an emerging approach to resistance training. Under this approach, participants terminate the set based on their prediction of the remaining repetitions left to task failure. While this approach holds promise, an important step in its development is to determine how accurate participants are in their predictions. That is, what is the difference between the predicted and actual number of repetitions remaining to task failure, which ideally should be as small as possible.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the accuracy in predicting repetitions to task failure in resistance exercises.

designScoping review and exploratory meta-analysis. SEARCH AND INCLUSION: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2021 using the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar databases. Inclusion criteria included studies with healthy participants who predicted the number of repetitions they can complete to task failure in various resistance exercises, before or during an ongoing set, which was performed to task failure. Sixteen publications were eligible for inclusion, of which 13 publications covering 12 studies, with a total of 414 participants, were included in our meta-analysis.

resultsThe main multilevel meta-analysis model including all effects sizes (262 across 12 clusters) revealed that participants tended to underpredict the number of repetitions to task failure by 0.95 repetitions (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-1.73), but with considerable heterogeneity (Q

conclusionsParticipants were imperfect in their ability to predict proximity to task failure independent of their training background. It remains to be determined whether the observed degree of inaccuracy should be considered acceptable. Despite this, prediction accuracies can be improved if they are provided closer to task failure, when using heavier loads, or in later sets. To reduce the heterogeneity between studies, future studies should include a clear and detailed account of how task failure was explained to participants and how it was confirmed.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingExerciseExercise TherapyHumansMuscle Strength

Identifiers

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.