ReviewJournal of exercise science and fitness2025
Autoregulated resistance training for maximal strength enhancement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Objectives: This study aims to systematically review the effects of Autoregulating Progressive Resistance Exercise (APRE), Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and Velocity-based Resistance Training (VBRT) on maximal strength through a network meta-analysis. Methods: Forest plots and network diagrams visualized training modality differences and intervention relationships. Pooled standard mean difference (SMD) of different studies and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) quantified effect sizes, with inconsistency models assessing heterogeneity and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values ranking protocols by optimal probability. Results: For back squat 1RM, no moderate/large effect sizes were observed between interventions. SUCRA rankings showed APRE (93.0 %) as the most optimal intervention, followed by RPE (66.8 %), VBRT (27.0 %), and PBRT (13.2 %). In bench press 1RM, PBRT demonstrated a large effect vs APRE (SMD = -0.83, -1.22 to -0.44), while RPE showed a moderate effect vs APRE (SMD = -0.76, -1.70 to 0.19). SUCRA rankings prioritized APRE (97.1 %), followed by VBRT (57.1 %), RPE (29.9 %), and PBRT (15.9 %). Conclusion: In this study, the network meta-analysis confirmed that APRE, VBRT, and RPE were significantly more effective than PBRT in enhancing maximum strength. Among these, APRE demonstrated the greatest effect, ranking first in the improvement of both the back squat and bench press 1RM, followed by VBRT, RPE, and PBRT.
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.