Trial reportPloS one2018
Active recovery affects the recovery of the corticospinal system but not of muscle contractile properties.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Etiology and recovery of knee extensor muscle fatigue following simulated basketball match-play.Biology of sport · 2025Article
- Effect of repeated sessions of dual-site anodal tDCS on post-exercise performance and subjective recovery in recreationally active females: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
- Non-local muscle fatigue is mediated at spinal and supraspinal levels.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Altered Neural Response Induced by Central-Fatigue in the Cortical Area During High-Intensity Interval Pedaling.Basic and clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeActive recovery is often used by athletes after strenuous exercise or competition but its underlying mechanisms are not well understood. We hypothesized that active recovery speeds-up recovery processes within the muscle and the central nervous system (CNS).
methodsWe assessed muscular and CNS recovery by measuring the voluntary activation (VA) in the vastus lateralis muscle with transcranial magnetic stimulation (VATMS) and peripheral nerve stimulation (VAPNS) during maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) of the knee extensors in 11 subjects. Measurements were performed before and after a fatiguing cycling time-trial, after an active and a passive recovery treatment and after another fatiguing task (1 min MVC). The measurements were performed a second time 24 h after the time-trial.
resultsWe observed a time × group interaction effect for VATMS (p = 0.013). Post-hoc corrected T-tests demonstrated an increased VATMS after active recovery when measured after the 1 min MVC performed 24 h after the time-trial (mean ± SD; 95.2 ± 4.1% vs. 89.2 ± 6.6%, p = 0.026). No significant effects were observed for all other variables.
conclusionsActive recovery increased aspects of central, rather than muscle recovery. However, no effect on MVC was seen, implying that even if active recovery speeds up CNS recovery, without affecting the recovery of muscle contractile properties, this doesn´t translate into increases in overall performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.