ArticlePloS one2023
Validity and reliability of upper body push and pull tests to determine one-repetition maximum.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability, Device Agreement and Validity of Load-Velocity Profiles: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Sensitivity of the load-velocity relationship variables to discriminate the level of fatigue induced by multiple sets of the smith-machine squat exercise.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore the validity and reliability of three different strength testing approaches to determine one-repetition maximum (1RM) in the bench press and prone bench pull.
methodsTwenty-eight recreationally active subjects (25 ± 2 years, 178 ± 8 cm, 78 ± 9 kg) were assessed for load-velocity (L-V) relationship, 1RM, maximal isometric force (MIF), and maximal repetitions to failure (MRF) in a Smith Machine on three separated sessions. Linear regression was used for L-V relationship, MIF, and MRF to predict 1RM. Level of significance was set to ρ ≤ 0.05.
resultsReliability analyses of the varying 1RM estimations revealed mean differences from 0.6 to -1.3 kg (mainly trivial effects) between test days 1 and 2, intraclass correlation coefficient was > 0.96, and coefficient of variation (CV) was in the range 2.3-8.3% for all tests. Regarding validity, all 1RM predictions exhibited a mean difference ≤ 1.3 kg (trivial), except for the L-V relationship method that underestimated the predicted 1RM by 5 kg (small) compared to the actual bench press 1RM. However, the L-V relationship method showed the least mean absolute errors. CVs were in the range 4.5-13.2%. Standard error of the estimate was in the range 3.2-9.7 kg. Change scores for all tests were significantly correlated with change scores in actual 1RM, except for MIF in the prone bench pull. Smallest deviations in 1RM predictions were observed for the L-V relationship approach.
conclusionsAll 1RM prediction methods were highly comparable to the traditional 1RM test. However, given the high variability associated with individual predictions for each method, they cannot be used interchangeably.
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.