SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Comparison of rest redistribution and traditional set configurations in terms of strength, power, and perceived exertion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. 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.
- Fragmented versus traditional resistance training: a randomized controlled trial on muscular strength, endurance, and enjoyment in recreationally trained young adults.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe rest redistribution (RR) method is a current approach used in resistance training that distributes the same total duration as the traditional set (TS) method but in shorter and more frequent rest intervals. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to bridge the existing gap by primarily comparing the effects of RR and TS configurations in resistance training, with a specific focus on strength, power-related performance outcomes, and perceived exertion.
methodsThe review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search encompassed the Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases and was last updated on 20 May 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (both parallel and crossover designs) involving healthy, active individuals that directly compared RR and TS configurations during resistance training. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool.
resultsFifteen studies involving 346 participants were included. The RR set configuration resulted in significantly greater improvements in mean power (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.72) and peak torque (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.36) compared to TS. Additionally, RR was associated with significantly lower perceived exertion (SMD = -0.67, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.30). No significant differences were observed between RR and TS for peak power, mean velocity, maximal force, or mean force.
conclusionIn conclusion, this meta-analysis compared the effects of RR and TS configurations on multiple strength- and power-related outcomes as well as perceived exertion. The findings indicate that RR provides significant advantages in mean power, peak torque, and perceived exertion, while no significant differences were observed in maximal force, mean force, peak power, or mean velocity. These results suggest that although RR may offer benefits for certain performance outcomes, its effects are not uniform across all strength and power variables.
trial registrationThe study protocol for the present systematic review was preregistered in the PROSPERO database under registration number CRD42024496872. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024496872.
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.