SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Effects of Variable-Resistance Training Versus Constant-Resistance Training on Maximum Strength: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Relative effectiveness of different resistance training modalities on lower-body strength and explosive power: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- Instability core trainingPeerJ · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of an 8-week unstable core training on trunk muscle strength and sprint performance among kayakers.PeerJ · 2026Trial
- Elastic Resistance Bands in Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review of Neuromuscular Mechanisms, Prescription, and Functional Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Effects of variable resistance training with different load ratios on lower-limb strength and power in male college students.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2025Article
- Manipulating Resistance Exercise Variables to Improve Jumps, Sprints, and Changes of Direction in Soccer: What We Know and What We Don't Know.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- The impact of blood flow restriction combined with variable resistance training at different loads on lower limb strength and explosiveness in collegiate basketball players.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Analysis of Velocity, Power and Skin Temperature in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes with Fixed and Variable Resistance.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accommodating resistance is more effective than free weight resistance to induce post-activation performance enhancement in squat jump performance after a short rest interval.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42−1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22−0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37−1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.55−0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28−2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39−3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = −0.04; 95% CI: −0.89−0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.
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.