SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Cross-Education Effect on Force Production Capacity After Unilateral Resistance Training in Clinical Populations: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe cross-education effect after unilateral resistance training (CE-URT) describes force production gains in a contralateral non-trained homologous muscle. While CE-URT is established in healthy populations, its role in clinical populations has not been systematically assessed. The CE-URT magnitude may be influenced by training parameters (i.e. contraction type, intensity, anatomical region and training-testing contraction specificity), but their contribution remains unclear in experimental models of immobilisation in healthy immobilised participants (HIP) and clinical populations, particularly in patients with musculoskeletal conditions (PMC) and hemiparesis after stroke (PHAS), where CE-URT has been primarily applied.
objectiveWe aimed to assess the CE-URT on force production capacity in HIP, PMC and PHAS, to examine the modulatory role of key URT prescription parameters.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for randomised and non-randomised controlled trials (≥ 3 weeks) assessing CE-URT compared to control conditions (immobilisation, conventional rehabilitation or within-subject control periods) on contralateral force production capacity. Risk of bias (Downs & Black) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]) were assessed. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses was conducted according to population (HIP/PMC/PHAS), contraction type (eccentric/concentric/isometric/concentric-eccentric-coupled), training intensity (maximal/submaximal), training-testing contraction specificity (specific/non-specific) and anatomical region (upper/lower limb). Effect sizes (ESs) were expressed as standardised mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).
resultsTwenty-four studies (low to very-low risk of bias) were included. Compared with control conditions, CE-URT induced a moderate effect on maximal strength (ES [95% CI] = 0.654 [0.393, 0.915], P < 0.001; Q(52) = 163.14, P < 0.001; moderate-GRADE) and a small effect on rapid force production (ES [95% CI] = 0.367 [0.115, 0.619], P = 0.007; Q(17) = 7.59, P = 0.97; low-GRADE). Large effects were observed in PHAS (ES [95% CI] = 1.263 [0.439, 2.087], P = 0.008; Q(9) = 48.28, P < 0.001; moderate-GRADE) and HIP models (ES [95% CI] = 0.845 [0.533, 1.158], P < 0.001; Q(20) = 18.63, P = 0.546; high-GRADE). Large effects were found in isometric (ES [95% CI] = 1.080 [0.286, 1.873], P = 0.014; Q(8) = 41.22, P < 0.001; moderate-GRADE), testing-training contraction specific (ES [95% CI] = 1.072 [0.449, 1.695], P = 0.003; Q(10) = 42.04, P < 0.001; moderate-GRADE), upper-limb (ES [95% CI] = 0.857 [0.529, 1.185], P < 0.001; Q(32) = 76.35, P < 0.001) and eccentric protocols (ES [95% CI] = 0.831 [0.491, 1.171], P < 0.001; Q(13) = 10.62, P = 0.64; high-GRADE). Moderate effects were observed after maximal (ES [95% CI] = 0.759 [0.256, 1.262], P = 0.005; Q(17) = 67.54, P < 0.001; very low-GRADE) or submaximal intensity protocols (ES [95% CI] = 0.587 [0.273, 0.902], P = 0.001; Q(34) = 91.05, P < 0.001; low-GRADE), and training-testing contraction non-specific protocols (ES [95% CI] = 0.542 [0.280, 0.805], P < 0.001, Q(41) = 97.667, P = 0.008; low-GRADE). No significant effect was observed in PMC (P = 0.150), concentric (P = 0.411) or lower-limb protocols (P = 0.093).
conclusionsThe CE-URT was shown in experimental models of disuse in HIP and clinical conditions with PHAS. The CE-URT appears promising for recovery of force production capacity in clinical scenarios. However, further research is needed to optimise intervention protocols and increase certainty of the evidence, particularly in PMC.
Identifiers
42410073What 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.