ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Influence of contrast compression therapy and water immersion contrast therapy on biomechanical parameters of the forearm muscles in martial arts athletes.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compared the immediate effects of game-ready contrast therapy (GRT) and contrast water immersion therapy (CWT) on stiffness, muscle tone, flexibility, pressure pain threshold, and isometric muscle strength. Design: Experimental, single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Thirty volunteers training MMA (age: 28.20 ± 7.57 years, BMI: 26.35 ± 4.06, training experience: 10.37 ± 7.34) were randomized to two groups: experimental (n = 15) and control (n = 15). In the first phase, the experimental group underwent GRT and the control-game-ready sham therapy (GRS). After a 2-week break, the experimental group underwent CWT and the control-contrast water sham therapy (CWS). The main outcome measures were muscle tone (T) stiffness (S) elasticity (E), pressure pain threshold (PPT), and maximum isometric strength (Fmax) assessed before therapy (Rest) and 5-min and 1-h after treatment (PostTh5min and PostTh1h). Results: Analysis of variance results for T, S, E, PPT, and Fmax showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.0001) for main effects and interactions. For both therapies GRT and CWT: T, S, and E were lower 5 min after therapy and 1 h after therapy compared to Rest (interaction effect, p < 0.00001). For both therapies GRT and CWT the PPT and Fmax were higher 5min and 1 h after therapy compared to Rest (interaction effect, p < 0.0001). The Conclusion: The positive impact of both contrast therapy strategies as a stimulus influencing important aspects of biomechanics was confirmed. The results showed similar effects of CWT and GRT (both similarly lowering S and E and increasing Fmax and PPT) except for the analysis of muscle tone, where the lowering effect of GRT had larger effect. These findings can be directly applied by researchers, sports medicine specialists, and martial arts trainers interested in the biomechanical effects of therapy on athletes, improving their understanding and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.