ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2020
Effects of a vibrational proprioceptive stimulation on recovery phase after maximal incremental cycle test.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global Proprioceptive Resonance (GPR) is a recently developed approach conceived to solicit the various cutaneous mechanoreceptors, through application of mechanical multifocal vibration at low amplitude and at definite body sites, limiting the stimulation of the profound structures. This interventional study evaluated the effects of GPR on cardiorespiratory function during the post-exertional recovery period. A group of volunteers involved in Triathlon (a multisport discipline consisting of sequential swim, cycle, and run disciplines higly demanding in terms of metabolic engagment), underwent two maximal incremental exercise tests until exhaustion followed alternatively to (a) a 13 minutes section of GPR or (b) a standard low intensity exercise acute trend of the same duration. These effects of these two approaches were compared in terms of recovery of: heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) and venous lactate concentration (Lac). The physiological parameters (HR, RR, SpO2 and Lac) recorded in the pre-exertion session showed similar values between the 40 volunteers while several differences were recorded in the post-exertion phase. After 6 min of GPR recovery it was recorded a drop in RR below baseline (19.4±4.15 min-1 vs. 12.2± 0.4 min-1; p<0.001) coupled with an increase in peripheral oxygen saturation above the baseline (GPR: 99.0%±0.16% vs. 96.6%±0.77%, p<0.001). Moreover, the most striking result was the drop in lactate concentration measured after 13 min of GPR recovery: 84.5±3.5% in GPR vs 2.9±7.6% reduction in standard recovery (p<0.001). Notably no differences were recorded recovery of heart rate. GPR has promising effects on post-exercise recovery on RR, SpO2 and lactate level on young athletes.
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.