SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Dose-structure-population interactions of protein supplementation combined with resistance training on body composition: a Bayesian network meta-analysis with dose-response modeling.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Protein supplementation is frequently utilized in conjunction with resistance training for the purpose of enhancing muscle mass and strength. Nevertheless, the efficacy of different protein types, dosing thresholds, and population-specific effects is debatable. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE databases through February 2026. RCTs comparing protein supplements (whey, casein, soy, pea, rice, milk, or blend) with placebo during supervised RT (≥6 weeks) were eligible. A Bayesian random-effects NMA was conducted using gemtc and JAGS. Dose-response curves were fitted with restricted cubic splines. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261340515). Results: Thirty-six RCTs (1,552 participants; 89 trial arms) formed a fully connected network of eight nodes. For LBM, whey protein ranked first (SUCRA = 0.91; MD vs. placebo: +1.24 kg, 95% CrI 0.61-1.87), followed by milk (SUCRA = 0.78; +1.18 kg) and casein (SUCRA = 0.72; +0.92 kg). The dose-response curve for whey indicated a plateau at 30-35 g/d. In older adults (≥65 years), the superiority of whey narrowed (SUCRA = 0.89 vs. 0.92 in younger adults), while casein's SUCRA increased from 0.68 in younger adults to 0.76 in older adults. However, this subgroup analysis was based on only nine trials, and the observed ranking changes may be unstable. Model convergence was satisfactory ( Conclusion: Among commonly available protein supplements, whey protein at approximately 30-35 g/d was associated with the largest gains in lean body mass when combined with RT, although this dose-response estimate is exploratory. Older adults may benefit from casein- or mixed-protein strategies as the advantage of whey is diminished in this population. Plant-based proteins showed smaller effect estimates than dairy-derived proteins, but the evidence certainty was low to very low and the credible intervals were wide, limiting firm conclusions. Systematic review registration: Identifier: CRD420261340515.
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.