-
European Journal of Sport Science Feb 2021The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objectives of this paper were to: (a) systematically review studies that explored the effects of exercise order (EO) on muscular strength and/or hypertrophy; (b) pool their results using a meta-analysis; and (c) provide recommendations for the prescription of EO in resistance training (RT) programmes. A literature search was performed in four databases. Studies were included if they explored the effects of EO on dynamic muscular strength and/or muscle hypertrophy. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model with Hedges' g effect size (ES). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the TESTEX checklist. Eleven good-to-excellent methodological quality studies were included in the review. When all strength tests, that is, both in multi-joint (MJ) and single-joint (SJ) exercises were considered, there was no difference between the EOs (ES = -0.11; 0.306). However, there was a difference between the MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ orders for strength gains in the MJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with MJ exercises (ES = 0.32; 0.034), and the strength gains in the SJ exercises, favouring starting the exercise session with SJ exercises (ES = -0.58; 0.032). No significant effect of EO was observed for hypertrophy combining site-specific and indirect measures (ES = 0.03; 0.862). In conclusion, increases in muscular strength are the largest in the exercises performed at the beginning of an exercise session. For muscle hypertrophy, our meta-analysis indicated that both MJ-to-SJ and SJ-to-MJ EOs may produce similar results.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 32077380
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2020.1733672 -
European Journal of Sport Science Sep 2017Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies,... (Review)
Review
Although the effects of short versus long inter-set rest intervals in resistance training on measures of muscle hypertrophy have been investigated in several studies, the findings are equivocal and the practical implications remain unclear. In an attempt to provide clarity on the topic, we performed a systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) electronic databases. Six studies were found to have met the inclusion criteria: (a) an experimental trial published in an English-language peer-reviewed journal; (b) the study compared the use of short (≤60 s) to long (>60 s) inter-set rest intervals in a traditional dynamic resistance exercise using both concentric and eccentric muscle actions, with the only difference in resistance training among groups being the inter-set rest interval duration; (c) at least one method of measuring changes in muscle mass was used in the study; (d) the study lasted for a minimum of four weeks, employed a training frequency of ≥2 resistance training days per week, and (e) used human participants without known chronic disease or injury. Current evidence indicates that both short and long inter-set rest intervals may be useful when training for achieving gains in muscle hypertrophy. Novel findings involving trained participants using measures sensitive to detect changes in muscle hypertrophy suggest a possible advantage for the use of long rest intervals to elicit hypertrophic effects. However, due to the paucity of studies with similar designs, further research is needed to provide a clear differentiation between these two approaches.
Topics: Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Research Design; Resistance Training; Rest; Time Factors
PubMed: 28641044
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1340524 -
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County,... 2022Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Influence of age, sex, and type of exercise on the efficacy of creatine supplementation on lean body mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Creatine supplementation has been shown to increase measures of lean body mass (LBM); however, there often is high heterogeneity across individual studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating creatine supplementation on LBM. Subanalyses were performed based on age, sex, and type of exercise. Based on PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following databases: Pubmed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Scopus (PROSPERO register: CRD42020207122) until May 2022. RCTs for investigation of creatine supplementation on LBM were included. Animal studies and studies on individuals with specific diseases were excluded. Thirty-five studies were included, with 1192 participants. Overall (i.e., inclusion of all studies with and without exercise training interventions) revealed that creatine increased LBM by 0.68 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-1.11). Subanalyses revealed greater gains in LBM when creatine was combined with resistance training (mean difference [MD], 1.10 kg; 95% CI, 0.56-1.65), regardless of age. There was no statistically significant effect of creatine on LBM when combined with mixed exercise (MD, 0.74 kg; 95% CI, -3.89 to 5.36) or without exercise (MD, 0.03 kg; 95% CI, -0.65 to 0.70). Further subanalyses found that males on creatine increased LBM by 1.46 kg (95% CI, 0.47-2.46), compared with a non-significant increase of 0.29 kg (95% CI, -0.43 to 1.01) for females. In conclusion, the addition of creatine supplementation to a resistance training program increases LBM. During a resistance training program, males on creatine respond more favorably than females.
Topics: Male; Female; Animals; Creatine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Body Composition; Exercise; Dietary Supplements; Muscle Strength
PubMed: 35986981
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111791 -
The Journal of Sports Medicine and... Aug 2022The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to compare changes in muscle size, strength, and power between free-weight and machine-based exercises.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The online databases of Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were each searched using the following terms: "free weights" OR barbells OR dumbbells AND machines" up until September 15, 2020. A three-level random effects meta-analytic model was used to compute effect sizes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
When strength was tested using a free-weight exercise, individuals training with free-weights gained more strength than those training with machines (ES: 0.655; [95% CI: 0.269, 1.041]). When strength was tested a machine-based exercise incorporated as part of the machine-based training program, individuals training with machines gained more strength than those training with free-weights (ES: -0.784 [95% CI: -1.223, -0.344]). When strength was tested using a neutral device, machines and free-weight exercises resulted in similar strength gains (ES: 0.128 [95% CI: -0303, 0.559]). There were no differences in the change in power (ES: -0.049 [95% CI: -0.557, 0.460]) or muscle hypertrophy (ES: -0.01 [95% CI: -0.525, 0.545]) between exercise modes.
CONCLUSIONS
Individuals looking to increase strength and power should consider the specificity of exercise, and how their strength and power will be tested and applied. Individuals looking to increase general strength and muscle mass to maintain health may choose whichever activity they prefer and are more likely to adhere to.
Topics: Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Resistance Training
PubMed: 34609100
DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.21.12929-9 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Oct 2015Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is arguably the most common benign disease of mankind. As men age, the prostate inexorably grows often causing troubling symptoms... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is arguably the most common benign disease of mankind. As men age, the prostate inexorably grows often causing troubling symptoms causing them to seek out care. While traditionally treated by transurethral resection or open surgical removal of the hypertrophied adenoma, today the urologist has numerous medical, surgical and minimally invasive techniques available. In this supplement The Canadian Journal of Urology provides a review of the various techniques and medications available today.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
As an introduction to the supplement, the aim of this article is to review the epidemiology and economy of BPH as well as its natural history and diagnosis. A systematic review of available literature was looking for articles on BPH and its epidemiology, economics, natural history and management using PubMed database.
RESULTS
The prevalence of this condition is increasing with the population aging and so does the economic burden. The exact etiology of this condition is unknown, but some risk factors have been identified. The diagnostic and treatment of this very common disease should rely on a strong collaboration between primary care physician and urologist.
CONCLUSION
There are multiple options in treating BPH including medical, surgical and newer minimally invasive options. The challenge with having a variety of options is to review them with the patient and help the patient select the best treatment option for their condition.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Biopsy, Needle; Health Care Costs; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Incidence; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 26497338
DOI: No ID Found -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Feb 2017Splenic irradiation (SI) is a palliative treatment option for symptomatic splenomegaly (i.e. for pain, early satiety, pancytopenia from sequestration) secondary to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splenic irradiation (SI) is a palliative treatment option for symptomatic splenomegaly (i.e. for pain, early satiety, pancytopenia from sequestration) secondary to hematologic malignancies and disorders. The purpose of the current article is to review the literature on SI for hematologic malignancies and disorders, including: (1) patient selection and optimal technique; (2) efficacy of SI; and (3) toxicities of SI. PICOS/PRISMA methods are used to select 27 articles including 766 courses of SI for 486 patients from 1960 to 2016. The most common cancers treated included chronic lymphocytic leukemia and myeloproliferative disorders; the most common regimen was 10Gy in 1Gy fractions over two weeks, and 27% of patients received retreatment. A partial or complete response (for symptoms, lab abnormalities) was obtained in 85-90% of treated patients, and 30% were retreated within 6-12months. There was no correlation between biologically equivalent dose of radiation therapy and response duration, pain relief, spleen reduction, or cytopenia improvement (r all <0.4); therefore, lower doses (e.g. 5Gy in 5 fractions) may be as effective as higher doses. Grade 3-4 toxicity (typically leukopenia, infection) was noted in 22% of courses, with grade 5 toxicity in 0.7% of courses. All grade 5 toxicities were due to either thrombocytopenia with hemorrhage or leukopenia with sepsis (or a combination of both); they were sequelae of cancer and not directly caused by SI. In summary, SI is generally a safe and efficacious method for treating patients with symptomatic splenomegaly.
Topics: Aged; Dose Fractionation, Radiation; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Middle Aged; Patient Selection; Radiotherapy; Spleen; Splenomegaly; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28063304
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.11.016 -
Sports Medicine - Open Jul 2023One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure...
BACKGROUND
One of the most popular time-efficient training methods when training for muscle hypertrophy is drop sets, which is performed by taking sets to concentric muscle failure at a given load, then making a drop by reducing the load and immediately taking the next set to concentric or voluntary muscle failure. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of drop sets over traditional sets on skeletal muscle hypertrophy.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE/PubMed databases were searched on April 9, 2022, for all studies investigating the effects of the drop set training method on muscle hypertrophy that meets the predefined inclusion criteria. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3 (Biostat Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA) was used to run the statistical analysis. Publication bias was assessed through visual inspection of the funnel plots for asymmetry and statistically by Egger's regression test with an alpha level of 0.10.
RESULTS
Six studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The number of participants in the studies was 142 (28 women and 114 men) with an age range of 19.2-27 years. The average sample size was 23.6 ± 10.9 (range 9-41). Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Meta-analysis showed that both the drop set and traditional training groups increased significantly from pre- to post-test regarding muscle hypertrophy (drop set standardized mean difference: 0.555, 95% CI 0.357-0.921, p < 0.0001; traditional set standardized mean difference: 0.437, 95% CI 0.266-0.608, p < 0.0001). No significant between-group difference was found (standardized mean difference: 0.155, 95% CI - 0.199 to - 0.509, p = 0.392).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that drop sets present an efficient strategy for maximizing hypertrophy in those with limited time for training. There was no significant difference in hypertrophy measurements between the drop set and traditional training groups, but some of the drop set modalities took half to one-third of the time compared with traditional training.
PubMed: 37523092
DOI: 10.1186/s40798-023-00620-5 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Mar 2021Baz-Valle, E, Fontes-Villalba, M, and Santos-Concejero, J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J...
Baz-Valle, E, Fontes-Villalba, M, and Santos-Concejero, J. Total number of sets as a training volume quantification method for muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 35(3): 870-878, 2021-This review aimed to determine whether assessing the total number of sets is a valid method to quantify training volume in the context of hypertrophy training. A literature search on 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) was conducted on May 18, 2018. After analyzing 2,585 resultant articles, studies were included if they met the following criteria: (a) studies were randomized controlled trials, (b) studies compared the total number of sets, repetition range, or training frequency, (c) interventions lasted at least 6 weeks, (d) subjects had a minimum of 1 year of resistance training experience, (e) subjects' age ranged from 18 to 35 years, (f) studies reported morphologic changes through direct or indirect assessment methods, (g) studies involved subjects with no known medical conditions, and (h) studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the results of this review, the total number of sets to failure, or near to, seems to be an adequate method to quantify training volume when the repetition range lies between 6 and 20+ if all the other variables are kept constant. This approach requires further development to assess whether specific numbers of sets are key to inducing optimal muscle gains.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Hypertrophy; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Resistance Training; Young Adult
PubMed: 30063555
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002776 -
Journal of Strength and Conditioning... Jul 2019Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all...
Ferland, PM and Comtois, AS. Classic powerlifting performance: A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2019-The purpose of this study was to review all scientific publications related to able-body drug-tested classic powerlifting performance since January 1, 2012, and to regroup them into a brief narrative review. Three electronic databases were systematically searched in August 2018 using the wildcard: powerlift*. A manual search was performed from the reference list of all retained articles. The search and selection strategy permitted to gather a total of 16 scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Results show that practitioners should prioritize a low-bar squat and a wide grip bench press because they generally contribute to moving greater loads, bring more attention to preventing injuries, since a fair amount of powerlifters seem to train injured and prioritize a hypertrophy-power-strength model when prescribing 3 times a week daily undulating periodization on nonconsecutive days for squat and bench. Practitioners could also introduce respiratory muscle training, use daily 1 repetition maximum training combined with down sets on experienced athletes and use a rate of perceived exertion scale based on repetitions in reserve combined with an individual velocity profile when prescribing intensity. Before competition, powerlifters seem to taper in this order: the deadlift, the squat, and lastly the bench press. The Slingshot does help to move more weight because it helps to generate more inertia, but it also deactivates the triceps. Finally, the present work was limited by the present literature but could serve as a reference in the field of powerlifting. Further research should include more details about the circumstances under which they were conducted.
Topics: Athletic Performance; Breathing Exercises; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Physical Exertion; Resistance Training; Weight Lifting
PubMed: 30844981
DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003099 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne and resulting scars may negatively impact on an affected person's psychosocial and physical well-being. Although a wide range of interventions have been proposed, there is a lack of high-quality evidence on treatments for acne scars to better inform patients and their healthcare providers about the most effective and safe methods of managing this condition. This review aimed to examine treatments for atrophic and hypertrophic acne scars, but we have concentrated on facial atrophic scarring.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for treating acne scars.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to November 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to randomised controlled trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which allocated participants (whether split-face or parallel arms) to any active intervention (or a combination) for treating acne scars. We excluded studies dealing only or mostly with keloid scars.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted data from each of the studies included in this review and evaluated the risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and arbitration supported by a method expert as required. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported scar improvement and any adverse effects serious enough to cause participants to withdraw from the study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials with 789 adult participants aged 18 years or older. Twenty trials enrolled men and women, three trials enrolled only women and one trial enrolled only men. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. With regard to blinding we judged 17 studies to be at high risk of performance bias, because the participants and dermatologists were not blinded to the treatments administered or received; however, we judged all 24 trials to be at a low risk of detection bias for outcome assessment. We evaluated 14 comparisons of seven interventions and four combinations of interventions. Nine studies provided no usable data on our outcomes and did not contribute further to this review's results.For our outcome 'Participant-reported scar improvement' in one study fractional laser was more effective in producing scar improvement than non-fractional non-ablative laser at week 24 (risk ratio (RR) 4.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 12.84; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); fractional laser showed comparable scar improvement to fractional radiofrequency in one study at week eight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.68; n = 40; very low-quality evidence) and was comparable to combined chemical peeling with skin needling in a different study at week 48 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; n = 26; very low-quality evidence). In a further study chemical peeling showed comparable scar improvement to combined chemical peeling with skin needling at week 32 (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.75; n = 20; very low-quality evidence). Chemical peeling in one study showed comparable scar improvement to skin needling at week four (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; n = 27; very low-quality evidence). In another study, injectable fillers provided better scar improvement compared to placebo at week 24 (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; n = 147 moderate-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Serious adverse effects' in one study chemical peeling was not tolerable in 7/43 (16%) participants (RR 5.45, 95% CI 0.33 to 90.14; n = 58; very low-quality evidence).For our secondary outcome 'Participant-reported short-term adverse events', all participants reported pain in the following studies: in one study comparing fractional laser to non-fractional non-ablative laser (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); in another study comparing fractional laser to combined peeling plus needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; n = 25; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling plus needling to chemical peeling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.20; n = 20; very low-quality evidence); in a study comparing chemical peeling to skin needling (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; n = 27; very low-quality evidence); and also in a study comparing injectable filler and placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.10 to 11.10; n = 147; low-quality evidence).For our outcome 'Investigator-assessed short-term adverse events', fractional laser (6/32) was associated with a reduced risk of hyperpigmentation than non-fractional non-ablative laser (10/32) in one study (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.45; n = 64; very low-quality evidence); chemical peeling was associated with increased risk of hyperpigmentation (6/12) compared to skin needling (0/15) in one study (RR 16.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 258.36; n = 27; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the reported adverse events with injectable filler (17/97) compared to placebo (13/50) (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.27; n = 147; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of high-quality evidence about the effects of different interventions for treating acne scars because of poor methodology, underpowered studies, lack of standardised improvement assessments, and different baseline variables.There is moderate-quality evidence that injectable filler might be effective for treating atrophic acne scars; however, no studies have assessed long-term effects, the longest follow-up being 48 weeks in one study only. Other studies included active comparators, but in the absence of studies that establish efficacy compared to placebo or sham interventions, it is possible that finding no evidence of difference between two active treatments could mean that neither approach works. The results of this review do not provide support for the first-line use of any intervention in the treatment of acne scars.Although our aim was to identify important gaps for further primary research, it might be that placebo and or sham trials are needed to establish whether any of the active treatments produce meaningful patient benefits over the long term.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Adult; Atrophy; Catheter Ablation; Chemexfoliation; Cicatrix; Cosmetic Techniques; Dermal Fillers; Female; Humans; Hypertrophy; Laser Therapy; Male; Needles; Young Adult
PubMed: 27038134
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011946.pub2