ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2024
Test-retest reliability of the ten-repetition maximum test in untrained young males and females.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] This study investigated the test-retest reliability of the ten-repetition maximum leg press (LP) and chest press (CP) tests in untrained young males and females. The secondary aim was to examine the test-retest reliability of the 10RM test according to gender. [Participants and Methods] All participants underwent the ten-repetition maximum test for the LP and CP across three sessions separated by 2 to 6 days of recovery: the first session was familiarization, the second for the initial test, and the third for the retest. To evaluate test-retest reliability, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change for both the LP and CP. These measures were analyzed separately for each gender to assess gender-related differences. [Results] High intraclass correlation coefficient index was obtained for both LP and CP for both genderes. The standard errors of measurement and minimal detectable changes were consistent with previously reported values. However, females showed more variability than males, particularly in the LP. [Conclusion] The ten-repetition maximum test for LP and CP is a reliable method for measuring strength in untrained young males and females. However, it should be noted that the margin of error may be higher among female participants compared to their male counterparts.
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.