ReviewBiology of sport2026
Enhancing physical performance with ischemic preconditioning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of moderators and performance outcomes.
Review in Biology of sport, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Effect of Variable Resistance Training on Post-Activation Performance Enhancement: A Systematic Review and Three-Level Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on physical performance, considering the influence of timing, warm-up (WU), participant characteristics, and IPC protocols structure. A total of 90 trials (1,439 participants) were retrieved from three databases and assessed using PICOS criteria. Multilevel meta-analyses with cluster-robust variance adjustments were conducted to calculate pooled effect sizes (Hedge's g). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the RoB 2 tool and GRADE framework. IPC produced a trivial but significant improvement in physical performance (g = 0.13, P < 0.01), which persisted after excluding SHAM effects (g = 0.10; P < 0.01). Significant improvements were observed for maximum repetitions, time to failure, and power output, but not for jump ability, strength, or oxygen uptake. Comparable benefits were found for anaerobic (g = 0.15) and aerobic (g = 0.10) exercise, with greater effects in males and less-trained participants. Performance was further enhanced when IPC was followed by WU (g = 0.16), with the optimal IPC-to-WU interval being ~42 minutes. Without WU, the effective IPC window narrowed to 6-7 minutes. In practice, IPC can enhance physical performance, independently of sham effects, moderated by sex, training level, and WU. For competition or testing, the most effective strategy appears to be 3 or 4 × 5-min IPC protocol, followed by a 42-min interval, standardized warm-up, and endurance testing. For mechanistic studies, WU should be excluded, and testing conducted 6-7 minutes post-IPC. Future research should target women, middle-aged individuals, and elite athletes.
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.