ArticleScientific reports2025
Cross-limb transfer during isometric plantar flexion familiarization.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the number of contractions required for an isometric plantar flexion familiarization. Twenty-six males were separated into two independent Groups: Group A: where five contractions were initiated on the dominant limb (right) followed by the contralateral limb; and Group B, initiated by the non-dominant limb (left) followed by the dominant limb. Participants carried out a 5-s maximum voluntary contraction (MVC), with an interpolated twitch administered to the tibial nerve. In Group A, both the dominant and non-dominant limbs required two contractions for familiarization, whereas in Group B, the dominant limb required two contractions, and the non-dominant limb required three (p < 0.05). A strong relationship between MVC and voluntary activation (VA) was observed in Group A for the D (r = 0.91, p < 0.05) and in Group B for the ND limb (r = 0.99, p < 0.05). The results demonstrated evidence of cross-limb transfer from the dominant to the non-dominant limb (p < 0.05). This phenomenon implicates central involvement, substantiated by VA responses that mirror the changes in MVC. Practitioners and researchers should consider the impact of cross-limb transfer during a single familiarization session when assessing strength to avoid overestimation of the gains. Future cross-education/cross-limb transfer studies could investigate the central mechanisms involved during familiarization.
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.