SynthesisPloS one2023
Is two-point method a valid and reliable method to predict 1RM? A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monitoring Resistance Training Intensity Using Load-Intercept from The Load-Velocity Relationship Variables: The Case of Deadlift.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Velocity-based training in mid- and late-stage rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a narrative review and practical guidelines.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2025Review
- Optimization of applied loads for assessing load-velocity relationship during back squat.PloS one · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the two-point method in predicting 1RM compared to the direct method, as well as analyze the factors influencing its accuracy. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted. Out of the 88 initially identified studies, 16 were selected for full review, and their outcome measures were analyzed. The findings of this review indicated that the two-point method slightly overestimated 1RM (effect size = 0.203 [95%CI: 0.132, 0.275]; P < 0.001); It showed that test-retest reliability was excellent as long as the test loads were chosen reasonably (Large difference between two test loads). However, the reliability of the two-point method needs to be further verified because only three studies have tested its reliability. Factors such as exercise selection, velocity measurement device, and selection of test loads were found to influence the accuracy of predicting 1RM using the two-point method. Additionally, the choice of velocity variable, 1RM determination method, velocity feedback, and state of fatigue were identified as potential influence factors. These results provide valuable insights for practitioners in resistance training and offer directions for future research on the two-point method.
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.