SynthesisPloS one2026
A critical appraisal of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic velocity-based resistance training on health and athletic performance outcomes: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSystematic reviews have become increasingly popular among researchers due to their importance in decision-making in health and sports. Only 3% of the reviews are considered decent and clinically useful, and 17% are decent but not useful. Therefore, we aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence of systematic reviews assessing the effect of velocity-based resistance training (VB-RT) on health or athletic performance outcomes in adults and older adults.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (via Ovid), SPORTDiscus (via EBSCO), and Epistemonikos from inception to January 09, 2024, and updated May 26, 2025, to identify reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of VB-RT on health or athletic performance outcomes in adults and older adults. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the overall confidence in the results of the included reviews with AMSTAR-2 as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low', and 'Critically low'. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We investigated the degree of overlapping in the reviews.
resultsWe included 17 reviews published between 2019 and 2025 in 10 countries, with 8222 participants. Most of the reviews (65%) investigated non-athlete adults. Only 4 (24%) used an formal system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. The degree of overlap in primary studies was moderate (CCA = 7.73%). The overall confidence in the results of 16 reviews (94%) was rated as 'Critically low', and only one (6%) was rated as 'Low'.
conclusionSystematic reviews of VB-RT studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve confidence in the results of future reviews by involving methodologists and statisticians and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Reviewers should also adhere to the latest standards of conduct and reporting, fostering a more cohesive, precise, and reliable understanding of the VB-RT role in performance and health outcomes.
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.