The Claim
Publication bias was detected in the meta-analysis using trim and fill analysis, with an adjusted effect size estimate of Hedges' g = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.13–0.51, p < 0.001) favoring fast training, suggesting the true effect may be larger than initially calculated.
What the research says
Supports is higher
Support is ahead, but a single strong opposing study can change this.
These are independent scores, not a percentage. Higher-grade studies count more, so a single strong opposing study can outweigh several weaker ones.
When scientists looked at all the studies together, they found that some were missing, making the results look smaller than they really are. After fixing this, it seems fast training works better than they first thought.
See the scientific wording
Publication bias was detected in the meta-analysis using trim and fill analysis, with an adjusted effect size estimate of Hedges' g = 0.32 (95% CI: 0.13–0.51, p < 0.001) favoring fast training, suggesting the true effect may be larger than initially calculated.
What the research says
1 studyStudy: Intentionally Slow Concentric Velocity Resistance Exercise and Strength Adaptations: A Meta-Analysis
The study looked at fast vs. slow exercise for strength and found that fast is better, and it also says the real benefit might be even bigger than they first thought because some studies were missing.
Score breakdown, mechanism chain, raw evidence, ideal studies needed & 1 supporting studies
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.