Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37129779›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2023

The Eccentric:Concentric Strength Ratio of Human Skeletal Muscle In Vivo: Meta-analysis of the Influences of Sex, Age, Joint Action, and Velocity.

James L Nuzzo, Matheus D Pinto, Kazunori Nosaka, James Steele

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Using Isometric Squat Strength to Predict Concentric and Eccentric Squat Strength in Young and Older Adults.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025
    Article
  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

4 authors.

James L NuzzoCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia. j.nuzzo@ecu.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9081-0522
Matheus D PintoCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2616-2492
Kazunori NosakaCentre for Human Performance, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA, 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7373-4994
James SteeleSchool of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8003-0757

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For decades, researchers have observed that eccentric (ECC) muscle strength is greater than concentric (CON) muscle strength. However, knowledge of the ECC:CON strength ratio is incomplete and might inform resistance exercise prescriptions. Our purposes were to determine the magnitude of the ECC:CON ratio of human skeletal muscle in vivo and explore if sex, age, joint actions/exercises, and movement velocity impact it. A total of 340 studies were identified through searches. It was possible to analyse 1516 ECC:CON ratios, aggregated from 12,546 individuals who made up 564 groups in 335 of the identified studies. Approximately 98% of measurements occurred on isokinetic machines. Bayesian meta-analyses were performed using log-ratios as response variables then exponentiated back to raw ratios. The overall main model estimate for the ECC:CON ratio was 1.41 (95% credible interval [CI] 1.38-1.44). The ECC:CON ratio was slightly less in men (1.38 [CI 1.34-1.41]) than women (1.47 [CI 1.43-1.51]), and greater in older adults (1.62 [CI 1.57-1.68]) than younger adults (1.39 [CI 1.36-1.42]). The ratio was similar between grouped upper-body (1.42 [CI 1.38-1.46]) and lower-body joint actions/exercises (1.40 [CI 1.37-1.44]). However, heterogeneity in the ratio existed across joint actions/exercises, with point estimates ranging from 1.32 to 2.61. The ECC:CON ratio was most greatly impacted by movement velocity, with a 0.20% increase in the ratio for every 1°/s increase in velocity. The results show that ECC muscle strength is ~ 40% greater than CON muscle strength. However, the ECC:CON ratio is greatly affected by movement velocity and to lesser extents age and sex. Differences between joint actions/exercises likely exist, but more data are needed to provide more precise estimates.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthAgedBayes TheoremExerciseExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMuscle Contraction

Identifiers

PMID37129779
PMCPMC10185641

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.