ArticlePeerJ2022
Reliability and validity of the multi-point method and the 2-point method's variations of estimating the one-repetition maximum for deadlift and back squat exercises.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reliability, Device Agreement and Validity of Load-Velocity Profiles: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of Barbell Position and Squat Depth on Trunk and Lower-Extremity Muscle Activation During the Back Squat in Healthy Adult Men.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Exploration of the correlation between clinical indicators and prognosis in hospitalized children with pneumonia and construction of a risk prediction model based on machine learning algorithms.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The Utility of Angular Velocity During Back Squat to Predict 1RM and Load-Velocity Profiling.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Test-Retest Reliability of the Functional Electromechanical Dynamometer for Squat Exercise.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed at examining the concurrent validity and reliability of the multi-point method and the two-point method's variations for estimating the one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the deadlift and squat exercises and to determine the accuracy of which optimal two loads can be used for the two-point method protocol. Thirteen resistance-trained men performed six sessions that consisted of two incremental loading tests (multi-point method: 20-40-60-80-90% and two-point method variations: 40-60%, 40-80%, 40-90%,60-80%, 60-90%) followed by 1RM tests. Both the multi-point method and the two-point method load variations showed reliable results for 1RM estimation (CV < 10%) squat and deadlift exercises. Session-session reliability was found to be low in deadlift (ICC: 0.171-0.335) and squat exercises (ICC: 0.235-0.479) of 40-60% and 60-80% in two-point methods. Deadlift (ICC: 0.815-0.996) and squat (ICC: 0.817-0.988) had high session-to-session reliability in all other methods. Regarding the validity of deadlift exercise, the multipoint method (R
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.