SynthesisScientific reports2022
The influence of sexual activity on athletic performance: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The interplay between sexual activity, athletic performance, and recovery in athletes: a narrative review.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several anecdotal reports suggest that sex before competition can affect performance. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether athletic performance or some physical fitness measure is affected by prior sexual activity. Web of Science (all databases) and Google Scholar were used to identify studies from which adult healthy subjects were included. As all studies were crossover trials, an inverse variance statistical method with random effects was used to minimize the uncertainty of the pooled effect estimate. Bias was assessed via the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) with a "per protocol" analysis. Nine crossover studies (133 subjects, 99% male) were used in this meta-analysis. All those studies did not examine athletic performance per se, but all studies assessed one or more physical fitness parameters. The RoB 2 suggested that overall, there were some concerns with bias. As there was moderate heterogeneity amongst the different outcomes (Tau
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.