ArticleSport sciences for health2025
The recovery process across the menstrual cycle in recreational female athletes: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Sport sciences for health, 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.
- Biomarkers of exercise-induced muscle damage and inflammation across menstrual cycle phases: a critical review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The relationship between post-exercise inflammation and menstrual cycle (MC) phases in female athletes is poorly understood. This study assessed recovery, measured via high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), after game days in recreational female athletes and whether it differed by MC phase. Methods: Nineteen participants provided demographic and MC data and underwent point-of-care blood testing for hs-CRP on game day (GD) - 1, + 1, + 2, and + 3 on two occasions ( Results: Compared to baseline (GD-1), hs-CRP was 25.0% (95% confidence interval:12.49,37.45) higher on GD + 1, 10.83% (- 1.66,23.31) higher on GD + 2 and returned to baseline by GD + 3 (- 3.20%(- 15.78,9.39)). Results were robust in adjusted models. A significant interaction between gameday and MC phase on hs-CRP revealed a 62.9% larger GD + 1 peak (40.31, 85.66) than GD-1 during the late luteal (LL) phase. Conclusion: Hs-CRP peaked on GD + 1, remained elevated on GD + 2, returned to baseline by GD + 3, with evidence suggesting inflammation was higher on GD + 1 in the LL phase. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11332-025-01552-1.
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.