Fig. 3 (a) Forest plot for muscle strength from AAS vs. Control. Values in the right of the vertical dashed line favor AAS, while on the left favor Control. Low heterogeneity in this comparison was detected (Q=3.83, P=0.80). (b) Forest plot for muscle strength from EX vs. Control. Values in the right of the vertical dashed line favor EX, while on the left favors the Control group. Low heterogeneity in this comparison was detected (Q=13.33, P=0.06). (c) Forest plot for muscle strength from AAS vs. EX. Values in the right of the vertical dashed line favor AAS, while on the left favor EX group. High heterogeneity in this comparison was detected (Q=32.21, P=0.00). (d) Forest plot for muscle strength from AAS+EX vs. EX. Values in the right of the vertical dashed line favor AAS+EX, while on the left favor the EX group. High heterogeneity in this comparison was detected (Q=76.78, P=0.00). Note: Sullivan’s study divided into high and low load exercise protocols. (e) Forest plot for muscle strength from AAS+EX vs. AAS. Values in the right of the vertical dashed line favor AAS+EX, while on the left favors the AAS group. High heterogeneity in this comparison was detected (Q=36.25, P=0.00). Values are the individual and pooled effect sizes (95% CI) from those studies that measured muscle strength. Data from the upper and lower strength were separately analyzed when measured.
[ATTACH=full]13815[/ATTACH]
