SynthesisPeerJ2022
Acute effects of variable resistance training on force, velocity, and power measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Effect of Variable Resistance Training on Post-Activation Performance Enhancement: A Systematic Review and Three-Level Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Elastic Resistance Bands in Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation: A Narrative Review of Neuromuscular Mechanisms, Prescription, and Functional Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Load-velocity relationship during chain-based variable resistance in the smith machine back squat.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Comparison of Muscle Activation between Variable Resistance Training and Free Weight Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Review
- A pilot study on the effects of a physio-avatar EB experience on motor performance.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- 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
- Diagnostic Predictors of Recovery Outcomes Following Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Retrospective Study Based on the Schatzker Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Analysis of Velocity, Power and Skin Temperature in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes with Fixed and Variable Resistance.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Acute Effects of Back Squat Combined with Different Elastic Band Resistance on Vertical Jump Performance in Collegiate Basketball Players.Journal of sports science & medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Acute effects of variable resistance training (VRT) and constant resistance training (CRT) on neuromuscular performance are still equivocal. We aimed to determine the differences between VRT and CRT in terms of force, velocity, and power outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases for articles until June 2021. Crossover design studies comparing force, velocity, and power outcomes while performing VRT and CRT were included. Two reviewers independently applied the modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess the risk of bias. A three-level random effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to compute standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 16 studies with 207 participants in the quantitative synthesis. Based on the pooled results, VRT generated greater mean velocity (SMD = 0.675; moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality evidence) and mean power (SMD = 1.022; low) than CRT. Subgroup analyses revealed that VRT considerably increased the mean velocity (SMD = 0.903; moderate) and mean power (SMD = 1.456; moderate) in the equated loading scheme and the mean velocity (SMD = 0.712; low) in the CRT higher loading scheme. However, VRT marginally significantly reduced peak velocity (SMD = -0.481; low) in the VRT higher loading scheme. Based on the meta-regression analysis, it was found that mean power ( Conclusions: VRT provides practitioners with the means of emphasizing specific force, velocity, and power outcomes. Different strategies should be considered in context of an individual's needs. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021259205.
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.