Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35000021›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2022

Convergent Validity of Ratings of Perceived Exertion During Resistance Exercise in Healthy Participants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

John W D Lea, Jamie M O'Driscoll, Sabina Hulbert, James Scales, Jonathan D Wiles

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07297485 (An Observational Cross-Sectional Comparison to Evaluate the Level of Agreement Between Standard Universal Goniometer Measurements and a Squat Height Calculator Algorithm to Determine Squat Position for Isometric Wall Squat Position.), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
11.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT07297485 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

An Observational Cross-Sectional Comparison to Evaluate the Level of Agreement Between Standard Universal Goniometer Measurements and a Squat Height Calculator Algorithm to Determine Squat Position for Isometric Wall Squat Position.

TypeobservationalSponsorNorthumbria UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled21ConditionsWall Squat Position
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. HAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

John W D LeaSchool of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK. john.lea1@canterbury.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-8320
Jamie M O'DriscollSchool of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
Sabina HulbertSchool of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
James ScalesInstitute of Population and Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Jonathan D WilesSchool of Psychology and Life Sciences, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK.
Canterbury Christ Church University · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe validity of ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) during aerobic training is well established; however, its validity during resistance exercise is less clear. This meta-analysis used the known relationships between RPE and exercise intensity (EI), heart rate (HR), blood lactate (BLa), blood pressure (BP) and electromyography (EMG) to determine the convergent validity of RPE as a measure of resistance exercise intensity and physiological exertion, during different forms of resistance exercise. Additionally, this study aims to assess the effect of several moderator variables on the strength of the validity coefficients, so that clearer guidance can be given on the use of RPE during resistance exercise.

methodsAn online search of 4 databases and websites (PubMed, Web of Science SPORTDiscus and ResearchGate) was conducted up to 28 February 2020. Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were inspected manually for further unidentified studies. The inclusion criteria were healthy participants of any age, a rating scale used to measure RPE, resistance exercise of any type, one cohort receiving no other intervention, and must present data from one of the following outcome measures: EI, HR, BP, EMG or BLa. Weighted mean effect sizes (r) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the τ

resultsOne-hundred and eighteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, with 75 studies (99 unique cohorts) included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted mean validity coefficient was large (0.88; 95% CI 0.84-0.91) and between studies heterogeneity was very large (τ

conclusionsRPE provides a valid measure of exercise intensity and physiological exertion during resistance exercise, with effect sizes comparable to or greater than those shown during aerobic exercise. Therefore, RPE may provide an easily accessible means of prescribing and monitoring resistance exercise training. Trial Registration The systematic review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018102640).

Indexed as

Exercise intensityPhysiological exertionRPEStrength trainingWorkload

Identifiers

PMID35000021
PMCPMC8742800
OpenAlexW4205822566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.