Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Response to: ‘A reminder of the importance of not losing the forest through the trees in the appraisal of systematic review findings’
  1. Brian C Focht,
  2. Ciaran M Fairman
  1. Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
  1. Correspondence to Ciaran M Fairman, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA; fairman.13{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We thank Neil-Sztramko et al 1 for their interest in our paper2 where they outline concerns they suggest may confound what can be concluded from the findings. We address each of their concerns below. A more detailed response to the authors can be found in the online supplementary file.

Neil-Sztramko et al raise an excellent point regarding the relevance of evaluating if inclusion of multiple papers from larger trials may have meaningfully influenced the percentage of studies we categorised as implementing the resistance training (RT) principles of interest. Accordingly, we recalculated the results after removing papers that represented secondary analyses of larger trials and added the studies they suggested be included. The revised recalculation, involved 29 studies and yielded implementation rates of 72% for …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles