SynthesisPeerJ2024
Sex differences in strength at the shoulder: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional fitness tests and their association with upper-limb isokinetic strength in older adults.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Gender Disparities in Shoulder Pain and Shoulder Surgery: A Current Concepts Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Sex differences in speed and sub-technique selection in elite sprint cross-country skiers: a time-trial qualification analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Biomechanical effects of sex and bat size on head-directed blunt strikes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Center of Pressure Analysis of Postural Stability During Repetitive Reaching with Passive Arm-Support Exoskeletons.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Handgrip Strength in Heart Failure: Developing a Reference Equation.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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
Background: Understanding differential strength capability between sexes is critical in ergonomics and task design. Variations in study designs and outcome measures generates challenges in establishing workplace guidelines for strength requirements to minimize upper extremity risk for workers. The purpose of this systematic review was to collate and summarize sex differences in strength at the shoulder across movement directions and contraction types. Methods: A total of 3,294 articles were screened from four databases (Embase, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science). Eligibility criteria included observational studies, direct measurement of muscular joint, and healthy adult participants (18-65 years old). Strength outcome measures were normalized to percentages of male outputs to allow comparisons across articles. Results: A total of 63 studies were included within the final review. Majority of articles observed increased strength in males; the gap between male-female strength was greater in flexion and internal/external rotation, with females generating ~30% of male strength; scaption strength ratios were most consistent of the movement groups, with females generating 55-62% of male strength. Conclusion: Sex strength differences should be considered as an important factor for workplace task design as women are more at risk for occupational-related injuries than men in equivalent strength requirements. Differences in strength were not synonymous across motions; females demonstrated increased disparity relative to male strength in horizontal flexion/extension, forward flexion and internal/external rotation. Some movements had an extremely limited pool of available studies for examination which identified critical research gaps within the literature. Collating and quantifying strength differences is critical for effective workstation design with a range of users to mitigate potential overexertion risk and musculoskeletal injury.
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.