The studies weren’t perfect, but they were decent quality overall — so the results aren’t likely wrong just because of bad methods, even if they didn’t track who stuck to the workouts.
Scientific Claim
The methodological quality of included studies ranged from moderate to good (19–25/29 on the Downs and Black checklist), suggesting that the findings are not primarily confounded by poor study design, though key variables like adherence were inconsistently reported.
Original Statement
“Using the Downs and Black checklist, the included studies were classified as being of moderate or good methodological quality.”
Evidence Quality Assessment
Claim Status
appropriately stated
Study Design Support
Design supports claim
Appropriate Language Strength
association
Can only show association/correlation
Assessment Explanation
The claim is a direct restatement of the authors’ quality assessment. No causal or definitive language is used, and it aligns with the study’s transparent reporting.
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (0)
Contradicting (1)
The Effects of Low-Load Vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Fiber Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis
The study doesn't say anything about how good or bad the original experiments were, so we can't tell if the claim about their quality is right or wrong.