ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Efficacy of post-exercise recovery strategies for elite soccer players: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically compare the efficacy of various recovery strategies for improving neuromuscular function, muscle damage, and subjective fatigue in elite soccer players following matches or validated simulations, and to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical practice. Methods: Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials evaluating post-match or post-simulation recovery strategies in professional and semi-professional soccer players. A Bayesian random-effects model was applied to conduct the network meta-analysis. Effect sizes were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI), and intervention efficacy was quantified using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Results: Twenty-three RCTs involving 388 participants and 17 recovery interventions were included. Key findings were as follows: (1) Far-infrared therapy (FIR) was most effective in improving Countermovement jump (CMJ) height (SUCRA = 98.3%); (2) Intermittent negative pressure therapy (INPT) produced the greatest reduction in Creatine kinase (CK) levels (SUCRA = 91.0%); (3) Portable cold compression therapy (PCMcold) had the strongest effect on alleviating Muscle soreness (MS) (SUCRA = 98.9%); (4) FIR and Intermittent vascular occlusion (IVO) significantly improved Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), although Hyperoxic gas (Hyp) ranked highest (SUCRA = 89.8%); and (5) no intervention significantly improved 20-m sprint performance (all 95% CrI included zero), and although IVO ranked first (SUCRA = 84.5%), its evidence reliability was low. Conclusion: Personalized post-match recovery in elite soccer should be based on specific targets. FIR is recommended for CMJ restoration, INPT for muscle damage repair, PCMcold for reducing subjective soreness, and FIR may be considered for MVC recovery. No superior intervention was identified for 20-m sprint recovery; therefore, basic recovery measures are advised. Future multi-arm RCTs are required to validate combined recovery strategies and standardize intervention parameters.
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.