IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0342992.html

A critical appraisal of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic velocity-based resistance training on health and athletic performance outcomes: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Andres F Loaiza-Betancur
  • Cristian González-González
  • Alejandro Díaz-Franco
  • Jeferson Castaño-Soto
  • Alejandro Alzate-Toro
  • Elias Areiza-Usuga
  • Diego A Zuluaga-M
  • Juan Osvaldo Jiménez-Trujillo
  • Andrés M Echavarría‑Rodríguez
  • Víctor Díaz‑López
  • Iván Chulvi-Medrano
  • Lisette Ethel Iglesias-González

Abstract

Introduction: Systematic reviews have become increasingly popular among researchers due to their importance in decision-making in health and sports. Only 3% of the reviews are considered decent and clinically useful, and 17% are decent but not useful. Therefore, we aimed to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence of systematic reviews assessing the effect of velocity-based resistance training (VB-RT) on health or athletic performance outcomes in adults and older adults. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Elsevier), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (via Ovid), SPORTDiscus (via EBSCO), and Epistemonikos from inception to January 09, 2024, and updated May 26, 2025, to identify reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of VB-RT on health or athletic performance outcomes in adults and older adults. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the overall confidence in the results of the included reviews with AMSTAR-2 as ‘High’, ‘Moderate’, ‘Low’, and ‘Critically low’. Descriptive analysis was used to summarize the characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We investigated the degree of overlapping in the reviews. Results: We included 17 reviews published between 2019 and 2025 in 10 countries, with 8222 participants. Most of the reviews (65%) investigated non-athlete adults. Only 4 (24%) used an formal system to evaluate the certainty of evidence. The degree of overlap in primary studies was moderate (CCA = 7.73%). The overall confidence in the results of 16 reviews (94%) was rated as ‘Critically low’, and only one (6%) was rated as ‘Low’. Conclusion: Systematic reviews of VB-RT studies often have serious limitations. Authors can improve confidence in the results of future reviews by involving methodologists and statisticians and using a rigorous and transparent system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Reviewers should also adhere to the latest standards of conduct and reporting, fostering a more cohesive, precise, and reliable understanding of the VB-RT role in performance and health outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Andres F Loaiza-Betancur & Cristian González-González & Alejandro Díaz-Franco & Jeferson Castaño-Soto & Alejandro Alzate-Toro & Elias Areiza-Usuga & Diego A Zuluaga-M & Juan Osvaldo Jiménez-Trujillo &, 2026. "A critical appraisal of systematic reviews assessing the effect of chronic velocity-based resistance training on health and athletic performance outcomes: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(2), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0342992
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0342992
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0342992&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0342992?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0342992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.