The Effect of Post-Exercise Cryotherapy on Recovery Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The Effect of Post-Exercise Cryotherapy on Recovery Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0139028
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Clijsen R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hohenauer E;Taeymans J;Baeyens JP;Clarys P;Clijsen R
本次综述和荟萃分析的目的是批判性地确定与非冷却、被动运动后策略相比，不同冷却应用对长达 96 小时 (hrs) 的各种详尽运动方案后恢复特征的可能影响。本研究总共处理了 n = 36 篇文章。为了确定研究问题，使用了根据 PRISMA 指南的 PICO 模型。用于质量评估的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具显示出较高的性能偏倚和检测偏倚风险。对主观特征（例如延迟性肌肉酸痛（DOMS）和感知用力评级（RPE））和客观特征（例如血浆标记物和血浆细胞因子）进行了荟萃分析。 27 篇文章的汇总数据显示，与 24 小时恢复后的对照条件相比，冷却，尤其是冷水浸泡对 DOMS 症状有显着影响，标准化平均差 (Hedges’ g) 为 -0.75，95% 置信区间 (CI) 为 -1.20 至 -0.30。这种效应在 48 小时（Hedges’ g：-0.73，95% CI：-1.20 至 -0.26）和 96 小时（Hedges’ g：-0.71，95% CI：-1.10 至 -0.33）后仍然显着。仅在恢复 24 小时后才能观察到降低 RPE 症状的显着差异，与对照条件相比有利于降温（Hedges g：-0.95，95% CI：-1.89 至 -0.00）。没有证据表明冷却会在 96 小时恢复期内显着影响任何客观恢复变量。
The aim of this review and meta-analysis was to critically determine the possible effects of different cooling applications, compared to non-cooling, passive post-exercise strategies, on recovery characteristics after various, exhaustive exercise protocols up to 96 hours (hrs). A total of n = 36 articles were processed in this study. To establish the research question, the PICO-model, according to the PRISMA guidelines was used. The Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, which was used for the quality assessment, demonstrated a high risk of performance bias and detection bias. Meta-analyses of subjective characteristics, such as delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and objective characteristics like blood plasma markers and blood plasma cytokines, were performed. Pooled data from 27 articles revealed, that cooling and especially cold water immersions affected the symptoms of DOMS significantly, compared to the control conditions after 24 hrs recovery, with a standardized mean difference (Hedges’ g) of -0.75 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of -1.20 to -0.30. This effect remained significant after 48 hrs (Hedges’ g: -0.73, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.26) and 96 hrs (Hedges’ g: -0.71, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.33). A significant difference in lowering the symptoms of RPE could only be observed after 24 hrs of recovery, favouring cooling compared to the control conditions (Hedges’ g: -0.95, 95% CI: -1.89 to -0.00). There was no evidence, that cooling affects any objective recovery variable in a significant way during a 96 hrs recovery period.