Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37582807›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2023

Effect of free-weight vs. machine-based strength training on maximal strength, hypertrophy and jump performance - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Markus E Haugen, Fredrik T Vårvik, Stian Larsen, Arvid S Haugen, Roland van den Tillaar, Thomas Bjørnsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of resistance training on breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Markus E HaugenDepartment of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, Levanger, Norway. haugen@helseogprestasjon.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0797-664X
Fredrik T VårvikDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Stian LarsenDepartment of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, Levanger, Norway.
Arvid S HaugenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Roland van den TillaarDepartment of Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Nord University, Levanger, Norway.
Thomas BjørnsenDepartment of Sport Science and Physical Education, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway.
Nord University · NOUniversity of Agder · NOOsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of strength training with free-weight vs. machine equipment is heavily debated. Thus, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to summarize the data on the effect of free-weight versus machine-based strength training on maximal strength, jump height and hypertrophy.

methodsThe review was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the systematic search of literature was conducted up to January 1

resultsThirteen studies (outcomes: maximal strength [n = 12], jump performance [n = 5], muscle hypertrophy [n = 5]) with a total sample of 1016 participants (789 men, 219 women) were included. Strength in free-weight tests increased significantly more with free-weight training than with machines (SMD: -0.210, CI: -0.391, -0.029, p = 0.023), while strength in machine-based tests tended to increase more with machine training than with free-weights (SMD: 0.291, CI: -0.017, 0.600, p = 0.064). However, no differences were found between modalities in direct comparison (free-weight strength vs. machine strength) for dynamic strength (SMD: 0.084, CI: -0.106, 0.273, p = 0.387), isometric strength (SMD: -0.079, CI: -0.432, 0.273, p = 0.660), countermovement jump (SMD: -0.209, CI: -0.597, 0.179, p = 0.290) and hypertrophy (SMD: -0.055, CI: -0.397, 0.287, p = 0.751).

conclusionNo differences were detected in the direct comparison of strength, jump performance and muscle hypertrophy. Current body of evidence indicates that strength changes are specific to the training modality, and the choice between free-weights and machines are down to individual preferences and goals.

Indexed as

EquipmentExerciseForce productionModalitiesMuscle sizeResistance trainingStability

Identifiers

PMID37582807
PMCPMC10426227
OpenAlexW4385836537

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.