Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39794667›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2025

Comparison of Muscle Growth and Dynamic Strength Adaptations Induced by Unilateral and Bilateral Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Witalo Kassiano, João Pedro Nunes, Bruna Costa, Alex S Ribeiro, Jeremy P Loenneke, Edilson S Cyrino

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Witalo KassianoMetabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil. acc.witalo@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-0868-8634
João Pedro NunesMetabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8144-5906
Bruna CostaParaná State University, Paranavaí, Paraná, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1651-4175
Alex S RibeiroUniversity of Coimbra, FCDEF, Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0312-8857
Jeremy P LoennekeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, The University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5409-9075
Edilson S CyrinoMetabolism, Nutrition and Exercise Laboratory, Physical Education and Sport Center, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9016-8779

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, great debate exists over the proposed superiority of some resistance exercises to induce muscular adaptations. For example, some argue that unilateral exercise (meaning one limb at a time) is superior to bilateral exercises (meaning both limbs). Of note, an evidence-based answer to this question is yet to be determined, particularly regarding muscle hypertrophy.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of unilateral versus bilateral resistance training on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains.

methodsA thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoBII) tool was used to judge the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using robust variance estimation with small-sample corrections.

resultsAfter retrieving 703 studies, 9 met the criteria and were included in the meta-analyses. We found no significant differences in muscle hypertrophy between bilateral and unilateral training [effect size (ES): - 0.21, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): - 3.56 to 3.13, P = 0.57]. Bilateral training induced a superior increase in bilateral strength (ES: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96, P = 0.01). In contrast, unilateral training elicited a superior increase in unilateral strength (ES: - 0.65, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.37, P = 0.001). Overall, studies presented moderate risk of bias.

conclusionOn the basis of the limited literature on the topic, we found no evidence of differential muscle hypertrophy between the two exercise selections. Strength gains appear to follow the principle of specificity.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthResistance TrainingHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.