Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,110

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Athlete’s Heart: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Structure and Function

Pluim, Babette M., Zwinderman, Aeilko H., van der Laarse, Arnoud, van der Wall, Ernst E.·2000·Circulation
DOI 10.1161/01.cir.101.3.336
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background —It has been postulated that depending on the type of exercise performed, 2 different morphological forms of athlete’s heart may be distinguished: a strength-trained heart and an endurance-trained heart. Individual studies have not tested this hypothesis satisfactorily. Methods and Results —The hypothesis of divergent cardiac adaptations in endurance-trained and strength-trained athletes was tested by applying meta-analytical techniques with the assumption of a random study effects model incorporating all published echocardiographic data on structure and function of male athletes engaged in purely dynamic (running) or static (weight lifting, power lifting, bodybuilding, throwing, wrestling) sports and combined dynamic and static sports (cycling and rowing). The analysis encompassed 59 studies and 1451 athletes. The overall mean relative left ventricular wall thickness of control subjects (0.36 mm) was significantly smaller than that of endurance-trained athletes (0.39 mm, P =0.001), combined endurance- and strength-trained athletes (0.40 mm, P =0.001), or strength-trained athletes (0.44 mm, P <0.001). There was a significant difference between the 3 groups of athletes and control subjects with respect to left ventricular internal diameter ( P <0.001), posterior wall thickness ( P <0.001), and interventricular septum thickness ( P <0.001). In addition, endurance-trained athletes and strength-trained athletes differed significantly with respect to mean relative wall thickness (0.39 versus 0.44, P =0.006) and interventricular septum thickness (10.5 versus 11.8 mm, P =0.005) and showed a trend toward a difference with respect to posterior wall thickness (10.3 versus 11.0 mm, P =0.078) and left ventricular internal diameter (53.7 versus 52.1 mm, P =0.055). With respect to cardiac function, there were no significant differences between athletes and control subjects in left ventricular ejection fraction, fractional shortening, and E/A ratio. Conclusions —Results of this meta-analysis regarding athlete’s heart confirm the hypothesis of divergent cardiac adaptations in dynamic and static sports. Overall, athlete’s heart demonstrated normal systolic and diastolic cardiac functions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.101.3.336

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pluim, B. M., Zwinderman, A. H., van der Laarse, A., & van der Wall, E. E.
Venue
Circulation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2000-01-25
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
336-344
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
DOI
10.1161/01.cir.101.3.336
OpenAlex
W2166157016
Cited by
1,110
References
3
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.