ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Eccentric vs. Concentric Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Performance and Health Benefits Across Diverse Populations.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eccentric (ECC) and concentric (CON) muscle training produce distinct physiological responses, with potential implications for musculoskeletal, metabolic, and cardiovascular health. Therefore, our objective is to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of ECC and CON training on strength, hypertrophy, metabolic function, and cardiovascular health across diverse adult populations. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024627600). The review included eight randomized controlled trials, pooling data from a total of 441 participants. For strength-related outcomes, six studies (n = 322) were included; for hypertrophy, four studies (n = 210); and for cardiovascular measures, three studies (n = 154). Studies were assessed using the TESTEX scale. Standardized mean differences and random-effects models were applied (
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.