Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37382828›Full record

ReviewSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2023

Data Informing Governing Body Resistance-Training Guidelines Exhibit Sex Bias: An Audit-Based Review.

Anurag Pandit, Thai Binh Tran, Meg Letton, Emma Cowley, Mitchell Gibbs, Michael A Wewege, Amanda D Hagstrom

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 5 papers.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Anurag PanditFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5252-6579
Thai Binh TranFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0437-7118
Meg LettonFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8827-5225
Emma CowleyDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2060-0244
Mitchell GibbsFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8053-308X
Michael A WewegeFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3283-2149
Amanda D HagstromFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. m.hagstrom@unsw.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8036-9216

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this review was to examine the ratio of female and male participants utilised in data informing consensus statements and position stands in the field of resistance training (RT). In order to achieve this objective, we conducted an 'audit' style review. We accessed three databases: SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE and Google Scholar utilising the following search terms: resistance or strength training AND consensus statements or position statements/stands. Eligibility criteria included consensus statements and position stands for RT in youth, adults and older adults. In this paper we have used the term 'female' to describe biological sex. Gender is a social construct and often describes roles and behaviours that society assigns to men or women. In this paper we have used the term 'women' to describe gender. Reference lists from each guideline were screened with the number of male and female participants extracted from each study. We also extracted data on the gender of the authors of the statements. We located 11 guidelines encompassing a total of 104,251,363 participants. Youth guidelines were comprised of 69% male participants. There were 287 studies that included both sexes, 205 male-only and 92 female-only studies. Adult guidelines were comprised of 70% male participants. There were 104 studies that included both sexes, 240 male-only and 44 female-only studies. Older adult guidelines were comprised of 54% female participants. There were 395 studies that included both sexes, 112 male-only and 83 female-only studies. Women authors comprised 13% of all authors of position stands and consensus statements. These results demonstrate an under-representation of females and women as both participants and as authors. It is imperative to ensure that data informing governing body guidelines and consensus statements are representative of the population they aim to inform. If this is not possible, guidelines should clearly state when their data and recommendations are based primarily upon one sex.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdolescentAgedFemaleHumansMaleSexism

Identifiers

PMID37382828
PMCPMC10432356

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.