Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2024
Can the cross-education of strength attenuate the impact of detraining after a period of strength training? A quasi-randomized trial.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A robotic-assisted intervention (ROBERT®) to enhance muscle strength in the hip flexor muscles following spinal cord injury: A pilot within-person randomized controlled trial.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Trial
- Cross-Education of Strength: From Theory to Practice in Contemporary Sports Rehabilitation-A Narrative Review and Clinical Implications.Sports medicine - open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUnilateral strength training may attenuate the decline in muscle strength and size in homologous, contralateral muscles. This study aimed to determine whether the cross-education of strength could specifically attenuate the effects of detraining immediately after a short (prehabilitation-type) period of strength training.
methodsTwenty-six strength-trained participants were assigned to either four weeks of unilateral strength training of the stronger arm (UNI) or detraining (Detrain). Motor evoked potential (MEP) and cortical silent period (cSP) responses, muscle cross-sectional area (CSA
resultsIn UNI, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength improved in both the trained (∆ = 2.0 ± 0.9 kg) and non-trained (∆ = 0.8 ± 0.9 kg) arms despite cessation of training of the weaker arm, whereas 1-RM strength was unchanged in Detrain. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction, isokinetic peak torque, and RFD did not change in either group. No neural changes were detected in UNI, but cSP increased in Detrain (∆ = 0.010 ± 0.015 s). CSA
conclusionUNI attenuated the effects of detraining in the weaker arm as shown by the improvement in 1-RM strength. However, the cross-education of strength did not attenuate the decline in muscle size in the contralateral arm.
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.