Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35842655›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2022

Effects of maximal-versus submaximal-intent resistance training on functional capacity and strength in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liam T Pearson, David G Behm, Stuart Goodall, Rachel Mason, Samuel Stuart, Gill Barry

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT06107855 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Low-dose Maximal-intent Versus Controlled-tempo Resistance Training on Quality-of-life, Functional Capacity, and Strength in Untrained Healthy Adults: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthumbria UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled20ConditionsQuality of LifeArmsLeg Press Resistance Training Machine
NCT06124911 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Two Low-dose Resistance Training Modalities on Strength, Functional Capacity, and Quality-of-life in Healthy, Community-dwelling, Untrained Older Adults: a Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthumbria UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled38ConditionsQuality of LifeArmsLeg Press Resistance Training (3x5), Leg Press Resistance Training (5x5)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Liam T PearsonDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK. Liam.T.Pearson@northumbria.ac.uk.
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada.
Stuart GoodallDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Rachel MasonDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Samuel StuartDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Gill BarryDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK.
Northumbria University · GBMemorial University of Newfoundland · CANorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of different methods of resistance training (RT) on functional capacity in older adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov databases, from inception to December 2021. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomised control trials (RCT's) involving maximal-intent resistance training (MIRT), where participants (aged 60+) had specific instruction to move 'as fast as possible' during the concentric phase of the exercise. Twelve studies were included within the meta-analysis. Divided into functional capacity and strength-related outcomes; Improvements were evident for timed-up-and-go (p = 0.001, SMD: - 1.74 [95% CI - 2.79, - 0.69]) and knee extension one-repetition maximum (1RM) (p = 0.01, SMD: - 1.21, [95% CI - 2.17, - 0.25]), both in favour of MIRT, as well as in 30 s sit-to-stand in favour of T-STR (p = 0.04, SMD: 3.10 [95% CI 0.07, 6.14]). No statistical significance was found for combined functional capacity outcomes (p = 0.17, SMD: - 0.84, [95% CI - 2.04, 0.37]), with near-significance observed in strength-related outcomes (p = 0.06. SMD: - 0.57, [95% CI - 1.16, 0.02]) favouring MIRT. Heterogeneity for FC-outcomes was observed as Tau

Indexed as

AgeingResistance trainingSit to standSPPBTimed up and go

Identifiers

PMID35842655
PMCPMC9287903
OpenAlexW4285588452

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.