Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35251786›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Validity of using perceived exertion to assess muscle fatigue during resistance exercises.

Hanye Zhao, Takuya Nishioka, Junichi Okada

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multimodal neuroimaging of fatigability development.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hanye ZhaoGraduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4598-7403
Takuya NishiokaGraduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.
Junichi OkadaFaculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Saitama, Japan.
Waseda University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is correlated with physiological variables. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of using the Borg CR-10 scale and velocity to predict muscle fatigue assessed by surface electromyography during single joint resistance exercises.

methodsFifteen healthy males underwent different fatigue levels of unilateral elbow flexion (EF) and knee extension (KE), consisting of low, medium, and high volumes at 65% of their one-repetition maximum. The RPEs, spectral fatigue index (SFI), and mean velocity of the experimental exercises were assessed throughout the trials.

resultsSignificant differences in overall RPE (

conclusionsMuscle fatigue resulted in similar increases in perceptual responses, demonstrating that RPE is useful for assessing fatigue when resistance exercise is performed. However, velocity changes may not reflect muscle fatigue correctly when exercise is no longer performed in an explosive manner. We recommend combining RPE responses with velocity changes to comprehensively assess muscle fatigue during clinical and sports situations.

Indexed as

Muscle FatigueResistance TrainingExerciseHumansMalePhysical ExertionWeight LiftingBorg scaleMuscle fatiguePerceived exertionResistance trainingSurface electromyography

Identifiers

PMID35251786
PMCPMC8896022
OpenAlexW4214536085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.