Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42606618›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2026

Analytical approaches to account for muscle size when evaluating strength.

Matthew A Chatlaong, John P Bentley, Kealey J Wohlgemuth, Scott J Dankel, Jeremy P Loenneke, Matthew B Jessee

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthew A ChatlaongExercise Science - School of Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA. chatlama@ucmail.uc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2513-4377
John P BentleyDepartment of Pharmacy Administration, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Kealey J WohlgemuthExercise Science - School of Human Services, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Scott J DankelDepartment of Health and Exercise Science, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.
Jeremy P LoennekeKevser Ermin Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.
Matthew B JesseeApplied Human Health and Physical Function Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management, University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skeletal muscle strength is multifactorial. Although associated, skeletal muscle size and strength often change disproportionately following resistance training with different loading paradigms. Examining strength relative to muscle size has been used to evaluate the potential contribution of muscle growth or other factors (e.g., neural or intramuscular adaptations) that occur with strength changes. Moreover, as muscle size could explain differing strength between individuals, comparisons of strength per unit of muscle size are sometimes used to account for differences in strength related to size. Several analytical approaches can be used to account for or hold muscle size fixed when evaluating strength. Based on prior work in sports medicine and other fields, we explored the use of ratio normalization and multiple regression techniques. Data from NHANES (1999-2002) and a previous investigation from our group were used in analysis demonstrations. In synthesizing and applying recommendations from previous work, we highlight some nuances and complexities with ratio normalization that may not be readily apparent without testing assumptions.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthHumansResistance TrainingHypertrophyMuscle qualityNormalizationResistance trainingSpecific forceSpecific tension

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.