Sports Medicine

, Volume 47, Issue 10, pp 2083–2100 | Cite as

Comparison of Periodized and Non-Periodized Resistance Training on Maximal Strength: A Meta-Analysis

  • Tyler D. WilliamsEmail author
  • Danilo V. Tolusso
  • Michael V. Fedewa
  • Michael R. Esco
Systematic Review



Periodization is a logical method of organizing training into sequential phases and cyclical time periods in order to increase the potential for achieving specific performance goals while minimizing the potential for overtraining. Periodized resistance training plans are proposed to be superior to non-periodized training plans for enhancing maximal strength.


The primary aim of this study was to examine the previous literature comparing periodized resistance training plans to non-periodized resistance training plans and determine a quantitative estimate of effect on maximal strength.


All studies included in the meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) published in English; (3) comparison of a periodized resistance training group to a non-periodized resistance training group; (4) maximal strength measured by 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squat, bench press, or leg press. Data were extracted and independently coded by two authors. Random-effects models were used to aggregate a mean effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and potential moderators.


The cumulative results of 81 effects gathered from 18 studies published between 1988 and 2015 indicated that the magnitude of improvement in 1RM following periodized resistance training was greater than non-periodized resistance training (ES = 0.43, 95% CI 0.27–0.58; P < 0.001). Periodization model (β = 0.51; P = 0.0010), training status (β = −0.59; P = 0.0305), study length (β = 0.03; P = 0.0067), and training frequency (β = 0.46; P = 0.0123) were associated with a change in 1RM. These results indicate that undulating programs were more favorable for strength gains. Improvements in 1RM were greater among untrained participants. Additionally, higher training frequency and longer study length were associated with larger improvements in 1RM.


These results suggest that periodized resistance training plans have a moderate effect on 1RM compared to non-periodized training plans. Variation in training stimuli appears to be vital for increasing maximal strength, and longer periods of higher training frequency may be preferred.


Resistance Training Maximal Strength Training Volume Bench Press Untrained Individual 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Author contributions

TDW conceptualized and designed the study, coded and analyzed effects, carried out the initial analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. DVT coded and analyzed effects, reviewed and revised the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. MVF analyzed effects, reviewed and revised the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. MRE reviewed and revised the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Tyler Williams, Danilo Tolusso, Michael Fedewa, and Michael Esco declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.


  1. 1.
    Kenney WL, Wilmore JH, Costill DL. Physiology of sport and exercise. 5th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(4):674–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siff MC. Supertraining. Denver: Supertraining Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baechle TR, Earle RW. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker D, Nance S. The relation between strength and power in professional rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13(3):224–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moss B, Refsnes P, Abildgaard A, et al. Effects of maximal effort strength training with different loads on dynamic strength, cross-sectional area, load-power and load-velocity relationships. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997;75(3):193–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(1):30–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stone MH, Sanborn K, O’Bryant HS, et al. Maximum strength-power-performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(4):739–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cormie P, McGuigan MR, Newton RU. Influence of strength on magnitude and mechanisms of adaptation to power training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(8):1566–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taber C, Bellon C, Abbott H, et al. Roles of maximal strength and rate of force development in maximizing muscular power. Strength Cond J. 2016;38(1):71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fry AC. The role of resistance exercise intensity on muscle fibre adaptations. Sports Med. 2004;34(10):663–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan B. Manipulating resistance training program variables to optimize maximum strength in men: a review. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13(3):289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Campos GE, Luecke TJ, Wendeln HK, et al. Muscular adaptations in response to three different resistance-training regimens: specificity of repetition maximum training zones. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;88(1–2):50–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Burkett LN, et al. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(3):456–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Maximizing strength development in athletes: a meta-analysis to determine the dose-response relationship. J Strength Cond Res. 2004;18(2):377–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peterson MD, Rhea MR, Alvar BA. Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(4):950–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herrick AB, Stone WJ. The effects of periodization versus progressive resistance exercise on upper and lower body strength in women. J Strength Cond Res. 1996;10(2):72–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, Schilling BK, et al. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 1. Strength Cond J. 2000;49(2):56–62.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeWeese B, Gray H, Sams M, et al. Revising the definition of periodization: merging historical principles with modern concern. Olympic Coach. 2013;24:5–19.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 1: theoretical aspects. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):308–17.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plisk SS, Stone MH. Periodization strategies. Strength Cond J. 2003;25(6):19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stone MH, Stone M, Sands WA, et al. Principles and practice of resistance training. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2007.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    DeWeese BH, Hornsby G, Stone M, et al. The training process: planning for strength–power training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. J Sport Health Sci. 2015;4(4):318–24.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization. Sports Med. 2010;40(3):189–206.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bartolomei S, Hoffman JR, Merni F, et al. A comparison of traditional and block periodized strength training programs in trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(4):990–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Issurin V. Block periodization versus traditional training theory: a review. J Sports Med Phys Fit. 2008;48(1):65.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haff GG, Triplett NT. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. 4th ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2015.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stone M, Wathen D. Letter to the editor. Strength Cond J. 2001;23(5):7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(2):250–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Buford TW, Rossi SJ, Smith DB, et al. A comparison of periodization models during nine weeks with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1245–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bradley-Popovich GE. Nonlinear versus linear periodization models. Strength Cond J. 2001;23(1):42.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stone MH, O’Bryant HS. Letter to the editor. J Strength Cond Res. 1995;9(2):125–6.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    O’Bryant HS, Byrd R, Stone MH. Cycle ergometer performance and maximum leg and hip strength adaptations to two different methods of weight-training. J Strength Cond Res. 1988;2(2):27–30.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stone MH, Potteiger JA, Pierce KC, et al. Comparison of the effects of three different weight-training programs on the one repetition maximum squat. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):332–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kramer JB, Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, et al. Effects of single vs. multiple sets of weight training: Impact of volume, intensity, and variation. J Strength Cond Res. 1997;11(3):143–7.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Willoughby DS. A comparison of three selected weight training programs on the upper and lower body of strength trained males. Appl Res Coaching Athletics. 1992;1:124–46.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoffman JR, Ratamess NA, Klatt M, et al. Comparison between different off-season resistance training programs in division III American college football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(1):11–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Souza EO, Ugrinowitsch C, Tricoli V, et al. Early adaptations to six weeks of non-periodized and periodized strength training regimens in recreational males. J Sports Sci Med. 2014;13(3):604–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rhea MR, Alderman BL. A meta-analysis of periodized versus nonperiodized strength and power training programs. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2004;75(4):413–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marx JO, Ratamess NA, Nindl BC, et al. Low-volume circuit versus high-volume periodized resistance training in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(4):635–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kraemer WJ, Hakkinen K, Triplett-Mcbride NT, et al. Physiological changes with periodized resistance training in women tennis players. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(1):157–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    DeBeliso M, Harris C, Spitzer-Gibson T, et al. A comparison of periodised and fixed repetition training protocol on strength in older adults. J Sci Med Sport. 2005;8(2):190–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Monteiro AG, Aoki MS, Evangelista AL, et al. Nonlinear periodization maximizes strength gains in split resistance training routines. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(4):1321–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pacobahyba N, de Souza Vale RG, de Souza SLP, et al. Muscle strength, serum basal levels of testosterone and urea in soccer athletes submitted to non-linear periodization program. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2012;18(2):130–3.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moraes E, Fleck SJ, Ricardo Dias M, et al. Effects on strength, power, and flexibility in adolescents of nonperiodized vs. daily nonlinear periodized weight training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(12):3310–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ahmadizad S, Ghorbani S, Ghasemikaram M, et al. Effects of short-term nonperiodized, linear periodized and daily undulating periodized resistance training on plasma adiponectin, leptin and insulin resistance. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(6):417–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Storer TW, Dolezal BA, Berenc MN, et al. Effect of supervised, periodized exercise training vs. self-directed training on lean body mass and other fitness variables in health club members. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(7):1995–2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Harries SK, Lubans DR, Callister R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of linear and undulating periodized resistance training programs on muscular strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(4):1113–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McGee D, Jessee TC, Stone MH, et al. Leg and hip endurance adaptations to three weight-training programs. J Strength Cond Res. 1992;6(2):92–5.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stowers T, McMillan J, Scala D, et al. The short-term effects of three different strength-power training methods. NSCA J. 1983;5(3):24–7.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Willoughby DS. The effects of mesocycle length weight training programs involving periodization and partially equated volumes on upper and lower body strength. J Strength Cond Res. 1993;7:2–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Conlon JA, Haff GG, Tufano JJ, et al. Application of session rating of perceived exertion among different models of resistance training in older adults. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(12):3439–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic; 1985.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rosenberg MS. The file-drawer problem revisited: a general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution. 2005;59(2):464–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2010.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Singer JD, Using SAS. PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J Educ Behav Stat. 1998;23(4):323–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kraemer WJ. Influence of resistance training volume and periodization on physiological and performance adaptations in collegiate women tennis players. Am J Sports Med. 2000;28:626–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon R. Periodization: the effect on strength of manipulating volume and intensity. J Strength Cond Res. 1994;8(4):235–42.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schiotz MK, Potteiger JA, Huntsinger PG, et al. The short-term effects of periodized and constant-intensity training on body composition, strength, and performance. J Strength Cond Res. 1998;12(3):173–8.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(3):638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Oba Y, Hetzler RK, Stickley CD, et al. Allometric scaling of strength scores in NCAA division I-A football athletes. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(12):3330–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hoeger WW, Hopkins DR, Barette SL, et al. Relationship between repetitions and selected percentages of one repetition maximum: a comparison between untrained and trained males and females. J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4(2):47–54.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Painter KB, Haff GG, Ramsey MW, et al. Strength gains: block versus daily undulating periodization weight training among track and field athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012;7(2):161–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Peterson MD, Dodd DJ, Alvar BA, et al. Undulation training for development of hierarchical fitness and improved firefighter job performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(5):1683–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rhea MR, Phillips WT, Burkett LN, et al. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for local muscular endurance/Comparaison entre des programmes d‘entrainement periodises, quotidiens et lineaires avec des intensites et des volumes egaux pour l‘endurance musculaire locale. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(1):82–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Prestes J, Frollini AB, de Lima C, et al. Comparison between linear and daily undulating periodized resistance training to increase strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(9):2437–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Miranda F, Simao R, Rhea M, et al. Effects of linear vs. daily undulatory periodized resistance training on maximal and submaximal strength gains. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(7):1824–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Franchini E, Branco BM, Agostinho MF, et al. Influence of linear and undulating strength periodization on physical fitness, physiological, and performance responses to simulated judo matches. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(2):358–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hoffman JR, Wendell M, Cooper J, et al. Comparison between linear and nonlinear in-season training programs in freshman football players. J Strength Cond Res. 2003;17(3):561–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stone M, O’Bryant H, Schilling B, et al. Periodization: effects of manipulating volume and intensity. Part 2. Strength Cond J. 1999;21(3):54.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, et al. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;30(3):784–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, et al. Volume-equated high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(999):1–7.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ahtiainen JP, Pakarinen A, Alen M, et al. Muscle hypertrophy, hormonal adaptations and strength development during strength training in strength-trained and untrained men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003;89(6):555–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Moritani T. Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1979;58(3):115–30.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Fukuda DH, et al. Improving muscle strength and size: the importance of training volume, intensity, and status. Kineziologija. 2015;47(2):131–8.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Phillips SM. Short-term training: when do repeated bouts of resistance exercise become training? Can J Appl Physiol. 2000;25(3):185–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stone MH, Plisk SS, Stone ME, et al. Athletic performance development: volume load −1 set vs. multiple sets, training velocity and training variation. Strength Cond J. 1998;20(6):22–31.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Fleck SJ. Periodized strength training: a critical review. J Strength Cond Res. 1999;13(1):82–9.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A, Komi PV, et al. Neuromuscular adaptations and hormone balance in strength athletes, physically active males and females during intensive strength training. J Biomech. 1989;22(10):1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Häkkinen K, Komi PV, Alén M, et al. EMG, muscle fibre and force production characteristics during a 1 year training period in elite weight-lifters. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1987;56(4):419–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    McLester JR, Bishop E, Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resistance training in experienced subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2000;14(3):273–81.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Häkkinen K, Kallinen M. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994;34(2):117–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, et al., editors. Powerlifters improved strength and muscular adaptations to a greater extent when equal total training volume was divided into 6 compared to 3 training sessions per week. In: 17th annual conference of the European College of Sport Science: Bruges; 2012.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lidor R, Tenenbaum G, Ziv G, et al. Achieving expertise in sport: deliberate practice, adaptation, and periodization of training. Kinesiol Rev. 2016;5(2):129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Newell A, Rosenbloom PS. Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1981. p. 1–55.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Influence of resistance training frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(7):1821–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Candow DG, Burke DG. Effect of short-term equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on muscle mass and strength in untrained men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):204–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Krieger JW. Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-regression. J Strength Cond Res. 2009;23(6):1890–901.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, et al. Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(4):525–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Haff GG. Quantifying workloads in resistance training: a brief review. Strength Cond J. 2010;10:31–40.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Scott BR, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, et al. Training monitoring for resistance exercise: theory and applications. Sports Med. 2016;46(5):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, et al. Effects of low-vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015;29(10):2954–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, et al. Effects of different volume-equated resistance training loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(10):2909–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, et al. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):867–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Linder SK, Kamath GR, Pratt GF, et al. Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(4):412–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, et al. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27(2):114–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, et al. Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):357. e1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, et al. Effect of training leading to repetition failure on muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(4):487–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25(1):76–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler D. Williams
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Danilo V. Tolusso
    • 1
  • Michael V. Fedewa
    • 1
  • Michael R. Esco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of KinesiologyThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologySamford UniversityBirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations