Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33332016›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

Sex Differences in Adaptations in Muscle Strength and Size Following Resistance Training in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Matthew D Jones, Michael A Wewege, Daniel A Hackett, Justin W L Keogh, Amanda D Hagstrom

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthew D Jones *School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5534-755X
Michael A Wewege *School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3283-2149
Daniel A HackettPhysical Activity, Lifestyle, Ageing and Wellbeing Faculty Research Group, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2504-3942
Justin W L KeoghFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9851-1068
Amanda D HagstromSchool of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. m.hagstrom@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8036-9216
UNSW Sydney · AUBond University · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReductions in muscle size and strength occur with aging. These changes can be mitigated by participation in resistance training. At present, it is unknown if sex contributes to differences in adaptation to resistance training in older adults.

objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to determine if sex differences are apparent in adaptations to resistance training in older adults.

designSystematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science; Science Direct; SPORTDiscus; CINAHL; and MEDLINE were searched from inception to June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies where males and females older than 50 years of age performed identical resistance training interventions and had outcome measures of muscle strength or size.

resultsWe initially screened 5337 studies. 30 studies (with 41 comparison groups) were included in our review (1410 participants; 651 males, 759 females). Mean study quality was 14.7/29 on a modified Downs and Black checklist, considered moderate quality. Females gained more relative lower-body strength than males (g = - 0.21 [95% CI - 0.33, - 0.10], p = 0.0003) but there were no differences in relative change for upper-body strength (g = - 0.29 [95% CI - 0.62, 0.04], p = 0.08) or relative muscle size (g = 0.10 [95% CI - 0.04, 0.23], p = 0.16). Males gained more absolute upper-body strength (g = 0.48 [95% CI 0.09, 0.88], p = 0.016), absolute lower-body strength (g = 0.33 [95% CI 0.19, 0.47], p < 0.0001), and absolute muscle size (g = 0.45 [95% CI 0.23, 0.66], p < 0.0001).

conclusionOur results indicate that sex differences in adaptations to resistance training are apparent in older adults. However, it is evident that the interpretation of sex-dependent adaptations to resistance training is heavily influenced by the presentation of the results in either an absolute or relative context. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (osf.io/afn3y/).

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingAdaptation, PhysiologicalAgedAgingFemaleHumansMaleMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthSex Characteristics

Identifiers

PMID33332016
OpenAlexW3112576291

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.