↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Resistance Exercise Training on Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 2,901)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
199 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
541 Mendeley
Title
The Effects of Resistance Exercise Training on Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Published in
Sports Medicine, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0769-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brett R. Gordon, Cillian P. McDowell, Mark Lyons, Matthew P. Herring

Abstract

The salutary effects of resistance exercise training (RET) are well established, including increased strength and function; however, less is known regarding the effects of RET on mental health outcomes. Aerobic exercise has well-documented positive effects on anxiety, but a quantitative synthesis of RET effects on anxiety is needed. To estimate the population effect size for resistance exercise training (RET) effects on anxiety and to determine whether variables of logical, theoretical, and/or prior empirical relation to anxiety moderate the overall effect. Thirty-one effects were derived from 16 articles published before February 2017, located using Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Trials involved 922 participants (mean age = 43 ± 21 years, 68% female/32% male) and included both randomization to RET (n = 486) or a non-active control condition (n = 436), and a validated anxiety outcome measured at baseline, mid-, and/or post-intervention. Hedges' d effect sizes were computed and random effects models were used for all analyses. Meta-regression quantified the extent to which participant and trial characteristics moderated the mean effect. RET significantly reduced anxiety symptoms (Δ = 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.44; z = 4.43; p < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was not indicated (Q T(30) = 40.5, p > 0.09; I (2) = 28.3%, 95% CI 10.17-42.81); sampling error accounted for 77.7% of observed variance. Larger effects were found among healthy participants (Δ = 0.50, 95% CI 0.22-0.78) compared to participants with a physical or mental illness (Δ = 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.31, z = 2.16, p < 0.04). Effect sizes did not significantly vary according to sex (β = -0.31), age (β = -0.10), control condition (β = 0.08), program length (β = 0.07), session duration (β = 0.08), frequency (β = -0.10), intensity (β = -0.18), anxiety recall time frame (β = 0.21), or whether strength significantly improved (β = 0.19) (all p ≥ 0.06). RET significantly improves anxiety symptoms among both healthy participants and participants with a physical or mental illness. Improvements were not moderated by sex, or based on features of RET. Future trials should compare RET to other empirically-supported therapies for anxiety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 399 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 541 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 541 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 101 19%
Student > Master 76 14%
Researcher 38 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 6%
Other 22 4%
Other 71 13%
Unknown 199 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 92 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 69 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 10%
Psychology 37 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 3%
Other 55 10%
Unknown 219 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 837. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2024.
All research outputs
#22,346
of 25,844,815 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#11
of 2,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#366
of 328,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,844,815 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.