Trial reportBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Single-set versus three-set resistance training in the management of women with patellofemoral pain: A randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 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
introductionResistance training is the primary intervention for managing patellofemoral pain (PFP). However, the impact of exercise volume remains unclear.
objectiveTo compare the effects of a resistance training program with a single set per exercise versus the conventional three-set approach on pain, self-reported function, muscle strength, and hop performance in women with PFP.
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 42 women with PFP were allocated to either a single-set (SS, n = 21) or three-set (TS, n = 21) group. Both groups completed a nine-week, twice-weekly lower limb resistance training program. The SS group performed one set per exercise, while the TS group followed the conventional three-set protocol. Primary outcomes included self-reported function (Anterior Knee Pain Scale, AKPS) and usual pain over the past week (Numeric Pain Rating Scale, NPRS). Secondary outcomes included stair ascent/descent pain, unilateral leg press and knee extension one-repetition maximum tests, and single-leg hop performance. Group comparisons were analyzed using mixed linear models under an intention-to-treat approach.
resultsNo significant differences in any outcome were observed between the SS and TS groups. Participants achieved significant improvements in AKPS [SS: + 16 points (95% CI: 10, 22); TS: + 17 points (95% CI: 11, 23)] and NPRS [SS: - 5 points (95% CI: - 6, - 4); TS: -4 points (95% CI: - 5, - 3)] over the intervention period. Significant enhancements were also observed in all secondary outcomes.
conclusionWomen with PFP who completed a 9-week resistance training program achieved comparable improvements in health status whether performing one or three sets per exercise.
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.