Title |
How to Construct, Conduct and Analyze an Exercise Training Study?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2018.01007 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anne Hecksteden, Oliver Faude, Tim Meyer, Lars Donath |
Abstract |
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be regarded as gold standard in investigating dose-response and causal relationships in exercise science. Recommendations for exercise training routines and efficacy analyses of certain training regimen require valid data derived from robust RCTs. Moreover, meta-analyses rely on RCTs and both RCTs and meta-analyses are considered the highest level of scientific evidence. Beyond general study design a variety of methodological aspects and notable pitfalls has to be considered. Therefore, exercise training studies should be carefully constructed focusing on the consistency of the whole design "package" from an explicit hypothesis or research question over study design and methodology to data analysis and interpretation. The present scoping review covers all main aspects of planning, conducting, and analyzing exercise based RCTs. We aim to focus on relevant aspects regarding study design, statistical power, training planning and documentation as well as traditional and recent statistical approaches. We intend to provide a comprehensive hands-on paper for conceptualizing future exercise training studies and hope to stimulate and encourage researchers to conduct sound and valid RCTs in the field of exercise training. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 12 | 11% |
Germany | 5 | 5% |
United States | 4 | 4% |
Spain | 3 | 3% |
Switzerland | 2 | 2% |
Australia | 2 | 2% |
Brazil | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
Ireland | 1 | <1% |
Other | 8 | 8% |
Unknown | 65 | 61% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 56 | 53% |
Members of the public | 44 | 42% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 300 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 50 | 17% |
Student > Master | 48 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 39 | 13% |
Researcher | 23 | 8% |
Other | 11 | 4% |
Other | 49 | 16% |
Unknown | 80 | 27% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sports and Recreations | 90 | 30% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 12% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 10% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
Psychology | 7 | 2% |
Other | 31 | 10% |
Unknown | 96 | 32% |