Dataset Information

Which resistance training is safest to practice? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The combination of resistance training (RT) and aerobic training is believed to achieve the best effects. Several different aerobic training methods have emerged in combination with or as a substitute for traditional RT. This study wished to verify which RT is safest in terms of injury prevalence and incidence. Also, it ascertained the characteristics of the injured subjects, the level of severity of the injuries and what definitions of injuries the available studies use.

Methods

This systematic review followed the PRISMA recommendations and was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42021257010. The searches were performed in the PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science, electronic databases using the Medical Subject Headings terms "Resistance training" or "Strength training" or "Crossfit" or "Weightlifting" or "Powerlifting" combined (AND) with "Injury" or "Injuries" or "Sprain" AND "Incidence" or "Prevalence" AND "Epidemiology" or "Epidemiological" in the title or abstract. The last search was performed on March 2023. To be included in the review, the studies had to be available as full text, be clinical trials focusing on epidemiological injuries of resistance training. There was no time limit for the selection of articles. To assess the quality of the studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was used.

Results

The initial literature search resulted in 4982 studies. After reading the titles, abstracts and full text, 28 articles were selected for data extraction. Seventeen investigated the injuries in HIFT/CrossFit, three in powerlifting, three in strength training, three in weightlifting and one in strongman. In addition, one study examined the HIFT/CrossFit and weightlifting. The incidence of injuries presented in the studies ranged from 0.21/1000 h to 18.9/1000 h and the prevalence of injuries was 10% to 82%. In the quality assessment for STROBE, five studies were classified at level A, 21 at level B and two at level C.

Conclusion

This systematic review showed that traditional strength training is the safest RT method, and strongman is the least safe regarding injuries. Few studies have been rated highly according to STROBE. Furthermore, few studies have been published on some RT methods. These two factors make it difficult to generalize the results.

SUBMITTER: Serafim TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10099898 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Which resistance training is safest to practice? A systematic review.

Serafim Thiago Teixeira TT de Oliveira Eliton Stanley ES Maffulli Nicola N Migliorini Filippo F Okubo Rodrigo R

Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research 20230412 1

<h4>Background</h4>The combination of resistance training (RT) and aerobic training is believed to achieve the best effects. Several different aerobic training methods have emerged in combination with or as a substitute for traditional RT. This study wished to verify which RT is safest in terms of injury prevalence and incidence. Also, it ascertained the characteristics of the injured subjects, the level of severity of the injuries and what definitions of injuries the available studies use.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 37046275

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShock-absorbing flooring may minimise impact forces incurred from falls to reduce fall-related injuries; however, synthesized evidence is required to inform decision-making in hospitals and care homes.MethodsThis is a Health Technology Assessment mixed methods systematic review of flooring interventions targeting older adults and staff in care settings. Our search incorporated the findings from a previous scoping review, MEDLINE, AgeLine, and Scopus (to September 2019) and other sources. Two independent reviewers selected, assessed, and extracted data from studies. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute tools, undertook meta-analyses, and meta-aggregation.Results20 of 22 included studies assessed our outcomes (3 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs); 7 observational; 5 qualitative; 5 economic), on novel floors (N = 12), sports floors (N = 5), carpet (N = 5), and wooden sub-floors (N = 1). Quantitative data related to 11,857 patient falls (9 studies), and 163 staff injuries (1 study). One care home-based RCT found a novel underlay produced similar injurious falls rates (high-quality evidence) and falls rates (moderate-quality evidence) to a plywood underlay with vinyl overlay and concrete sub-floors. Very low-quality evidence suggested that shock-absorbing flooring may reduce injuries in hospitals (Rate Ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, 2 studies; 27.1% vs. 42.4%; Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93, 2 studies) and care homes (26.4% vs. 33.0%; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91, 3 studies), without increasing falls. Economic evidence indicated that if injuries are fewer and falls not increased, then shock-absorbing flooring would be a dominant strategy. Fracture outcomes were imprecise; however, hip fractures reduced from 30 in 1000 falls on concrete to 18 in 1000 falls on wooden sub-floors (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78; one study; very low-quality evidence). Staff found moving wheeled equipment harder on shock-absorbing floors leading to workplace adaptations. Very low-quality evidence suggests staff injuries were no less frequent on rigid floors.ConclusionEvidence favouring shock-absorbing flooring is uncertain and of very low quality. Robust research following a core outcome set is required, with attention to wider staff workplace implications.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019118834 .

Project description:Greater muscular strength is generally associated with superior sports performance, for example, in jumping, sprinting, and throwing. This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of variable-resistance training (VRT) and constant-resistance training (CRT) on the maximum strength of trained and untrained subjects. PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant studies published up to January 2022. Fourteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Data regarding training status, training modality, and type of outcome measure were extracted for the analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias. The pooled outcome showed improved maximum strength with VRT, which was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.42-1.19) for all the subjects. In addition, trained subjects experienced greater maximum-strength improvements with VRT than with CRT (ES = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-0.93). Based on subgroup analyses, maximum-strength improvement with a VRT load of ≥80% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM) was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37-1.16) in trained subjects, while no significant differences were found between VRT and CRT for maximum-strength improvement when the load was <80% (ES = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.55-0.55). The untrained subjects also achieved greater maximum strength with VRT than with CRT (ES = 1.34; 95% CI: 0.28-2.40). Interestingly, the improved maximum strength of untrained subjects with a VRT load of <80% of 1RM was significantly higher than that with CRT (ES = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.39-3.36); however, no significant differences were noted between VRT and CRT when the load was ≥80% of 1RM (ES = -0.04; 95% CI: -0.89-0.81). Our findings show that subjects with resistance training experience could use a load of ≥80% of 1RM and subjects without resistance training experience could use a load of <80% of 1RM to obtain greater VRT benefits.

Dataset Information

Which resistance training is safest to practice? A systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Which resistance training is safest to practice? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets