The authors regret that the text on page 13 contained errors. It should read: “Post-hoc sensitivity analysis was undertaken with SDs imputed for the studies by Refs. [7,21]. The imputed SD was the median of all other SD values in the analysis. The effect of RT on muscle strength for the whole group was significant in favour of RT (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.08–0.66, p = 0.01) and heterogeneity was assessed as non-significant (I2 = 33%, p = 0.14). For children, the effect was statistically significant (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI 0.01–0.54, p = 0.04), yet not significant in adults (SMD = 0.90, 95% CI 0.17–1.96, p = 0.10) (Fig. 4)” Please find the corrected version of Fig. 4 below: [Figure presented] The corrections highlighted in this corrigendum do not affect the overall interpretation of the outcome. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.