SynthesisSports medicine - open2023
Effects of Drop Sets on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effects of Advanced Resistance Training Prescription Methods on Strength, Power, Hypertrophy, and Performance Adaptations in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Pooled it
- Acute and Chronic Effects of Drop-Set Training: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Repetition-Based Progressive-Overload Strategies in Resistance Training: Rest-Pause Versus Drop Sets.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026Trial
- Methods and Systems of Resistance Training: A Narrative Review Based on Contemporary Recommendations.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2026 · on this mapReview
- Meeting the WHO guideline on muscle-strengthening activities does not have to be time-consuming: a discussion of time-saving strategies.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Unilateral Resistance Training Strategies for Boosting Rehabilitation: An Expert Survey.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- The role of resistance exercise-induced local metabolic stress in mediating systemic health and functional adaptations: could condensed training volume unlock greater benefits beyond time efficiency?Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Resistance training beyond momentary failure: the effects of past-failure partials on muscle hypertrophy in the gastrocnemius.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Resistance Exercise Minimal Dose Strategies for Increasing Muscle Strength in the General Population: an Overview.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
methodsThis systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger's regression test with an alpha level of 0.10.
resultsSix studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2-27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9-41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357-0.921, p < 0.0001; traditional set standardized mean difference: 0.437, 95% CI 0.266-0.608, p < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was found (standardized mean difference: 0.155, 95% CI - 0.199 to - 0.509, p = 0.392).
conclusionsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that drop sets present an efficient strategy for maximizing hypertrophy in those with limited time for training. There was no significant difference in hypertrophy measurements between the drop set and traditional training groups, but some of the drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time compared with traditional training.
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.