Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803106›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Performance Benefits of Pre- and Per-cooling on Self-paced Versus Constant Workload Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Tessa M van de Kerkhof, Coen C W G Bongers, Julien D Périard, Thijs M H Eijsvogels

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tessa M van de KerkhofDepartment of Physiology (392), Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6339-1633
Coen C W G BongersDepartment of Physiology (392), Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0055-5308
Julien D PériardUniversity of Canberra Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6266-4246
Thijs M H EijsvogelsDepartment of Physiology (392), Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Thijs.Eijsvogels@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-0747-4471

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveExercise in hot environments impairs endurance performance. Cooling interventions can attenuate the impact of heat stress on performance, but the influence of an exercise protocol on the magnitude of performance benefit remains unknown. This meta-analytical review compared the effects of pre- and per-cooling interventions on performance during self-paced and constant workload exercise in the heat.

methodsThe study protocol was preregistered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wqjb3 ). A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE from inception to 9 June, 2023. We included studies that examined the effects of pre- or per-cooling on exercise performance in male individuals under heat stress (> 30 °C) during self-paced or constant workload exercise in cross-over design studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized trials.

resultsFifty-nine studies (n = 563 athletes) were identified from 3300 records, of which 40 (n = 370 athletes) used a self-paced protocol and 19 (n = 193 athletes) used a constant workload protocol. Eighteen studies compared multiple cooling interventions and were included more than once (total n = 86 experiments and n = 832 paired measurements). Sixty-seven experiments used a pre-cooling intervention and 19 used a per-cooling intervention. Average ambient conditions were 34.0 °C [32.3-35.0 °C] and 50.0% [40.0-55.3%] relative humidity. Cooling interventions attenuated the performance decline in hot conditions and were more effective during a constant workload (effect size [ES] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.81) compared with self-paced exercise (ES = 0.30, 95% CI 0.18-0.42, p = 0.004). A difference in performance outcomes between protocols was only observed with pre-cooling (ES = 0.74, 95% CI 0.50-0.98 vs ES = 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.42, p = 0.001), but not per-cooling (ES = 0.45, 95% CI 0.16-0.74 vs ES = 0.35, 95% CI 0.01-0.70, p = 0.68).

conclusionsCooling interventions attenuated the decline in performance during exercise in the heat, but the magnitude of the effect is dependent on exercise protocol (self-paced vs constant workload) and cooling type (pre- vs per-cooling). Pre-cooling appears to be more effective in attenuating the decline in exercise performance during a constant workload compared with self-paced exercise protocols, whereas no differences were found in the effectiveness of per-cooling.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceExerciseHeat Stress DisordersHot TemperatureHumansMaleWorkload

Identifiers

PMID37803106
PMCPMC10933154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.