Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2015
Postexercise autonomic function after repeated-sprints training.
Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of long-term exercise intervention on heart rate variability indices: a systematic meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- The Effects of Creatine Monohydrate Loading on Exercise Recovery in Active Women throughout the Menstrual Cycle.Nutrients · 2023Trial
- Maximizing anaerobic performance with repeated-sprint training in hypoxia: In search of an optimal altitude based on pulse oxygen saturation monitoring.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- Cardiac Parasympathetic Reactivation Following Small-Sided Games, Repeated Sprints and Circuit Training in Elite Handball Players.Journal of human kinetics · 2020Article
- Short-Term Cardiac Autonomic Recovery after a Repeated Sprint Test in Young Soccer Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
- Effect of repeated-sprints on the reliability of short-term parasympathetic reactivation.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe examined the effects of an 8-week repeated-sprint (RS) training protocol on postexercise parasympathetic reactivation (PNSr) in healthy adults.
methodsEighteen male adults (24.3 ± 3.7 years) were assigned to either of two groups. One group (n = 9) performed RS training (EXP, 3 times week(-1), 18 maximal all-out 15-m sprints interspersed with 17 s of passive recovery); the other served as the control group (CON, n = 9). Performance before, during, and after was assessed by measuring RS ability time (S dec) and total sprint time. The subjects were then seated for 10 min immediately after each trial and postexercise HR recovery (HRR), and vagal-related HR variability (HRV) indices were measured.
resultsAll subjects demonstrated a decrease in S dec. However, only EXP showed a decrease in total sprint time (-10.5 % of baseline value). Using a qualitative statistical analysis method, we found a likely to almost certain positive effect of RS training on HR. The mean of each HRR and HRV index indicated a greater change in PNSr in EXP than in CON (e.g. with a 78/22/1 % chance to demonstrate a positive/trivial/negative effect on HRR60s after RS training; 74/21/5 % on LN rMSSD5-10min). Large correlations were noted between the changes in S dec [r = 0.59, 90 % CI (0.43)], total sprint time [r = -0.61 (0.42)] and HRR60s.
conclusionRS training seems to be an effective method to improve postexercise PNSr in healthy adults. Also, HRR60s appears to be a method for evaluating positive adaption to RS training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26215172What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.