Loading
Life sciences · Observational Study
ClinicalTrials.gov · October 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Observational Study.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Registry record from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06796582). This is a study registration, not published results. Lead sponsor: Technical University of Munich. Recruitment status: RECRUITING. Study type: OBSERVATIONAL. Enrollment: 50 participants (ESTIMATED). Conditions: Heart Failure, Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), Atrial Fibrillation (AF), Diabetes Mellitus, Arterial Hypertension. Primary outcome measures: Estimated 1-Repetition-Maximum , cross-sectional study (day 1). Brief summary: Exercise training is a cornerstone in the prevention and rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease. While research has primarily focused on endurance training, resistance training becomes more and more important. The gold standard to prescribe resistance training intensity or monitor longitudinal changes is the 1-Repetition-Maximum (1-RM) test. However, particularly for unexperienced individuals, this test may not be recommendable due to the high load and an increased risk of injuries. Alternatively, there are several published formulas to estimate the 1-RM based on a multiple-repetition-maximum (or repetition-to-failure) test. However, these formulas have been primarily tested in healthy individuals. Moreover, the reliability of the 1-RM estimation based on two tests with different submaximal weight is unknown. Therefore, the present study evaluates the agreement of the 1-RM estimation (based on different formulas) between two Multiple-RM tests with different weight in 50 patients with cardiovascular disease (heart failure, coronary heart disease, atrial fibrillation) or cardiovascular risk factors (type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension).