Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36873661›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2023

Maximal strength measurement: A critical evaluation of common methods-a narrative review.

Konstantin Warneke, Carl-Maximilian Wagner, Michael Keiner, Martin Hillebrecht, Stephan Schiemann, David George Behm, Sebastian Wallot, Klaus Wirth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Inter-Session Reliability of an Isometric Muscle Strength Protocol in Older Adults.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Konstantin WarnekeDepartment for Exercise, Sport and Health, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
Carl-Maximilian WagnerDepartment of Training Science, German University of Health and Sport, Berlin, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Michael KeinerDepartment of Training Science, German University of Health and Sport, Berlin, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
Martin HillebrechtUniversity Sports Center, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Stephan SchiemannDepartment for Exercise, Sport and Health, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany.
David George BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns, NL, Canada.
Sebastian WallotInstitute of Psychology, Leuphana University Lüneburg.
Klaus WirthFaculty of Training and Sports Science, University of Applied Science Wiener Neustadt, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measuring maximal strength (MSt) is a very common performance diagnoses, especially in elite and competitive sports. The most popular procedure in test batteries is to test the one repetition maximum (1RM). Since testing maximum dynamic strength is very time consuming, it often suggested to use isometric testing conditions instead. This suggestion is based on the assumption that the high Pearson correlation coefficients of

Indexed as

1RMagreementdynamicisometricisometric mid thigh pullmaximal strength testingperformance testingsquat

Identifiers

PMID36873661
PMCPMC9981657

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.