SynthesisPloS one2024
Does overreaching from endurance-based training impair sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unlocking high-intensity performance thresholds through ventilatory signatures in the ECG.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Monitoring Sleep and Nightly Recovery with Wrist-Worn Wearables: Links to Training Load and Performance Adaptations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
backgroundOverreaching is often linked to a deterioration in sleep quality, yet a comprehensive review is lacking. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to synthesise the literature and quantify the effect of overreaching from endurance-based training on sleep quality.
methodThe review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The final search was conducted in May 2023 using four electronic databases (Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Database, SPORTDiscus). Studies were included for a qualitative review, while random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for objective and subjective sleep. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The search returned 805 articles. Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review; Three and eight articles were eligible for the meta-analyses (objective and subjective, respectively). On average, the overreaching protocols were sixteen days in length (6 to 28 days) and included exercise modalities such as cycling (number of studies [k] = 5), rowing (k = 4), triathlon (k = 3), running (k = 2), and swimming (k = 1). Actigraphy was the only form of objective sleep measurement used across all studies (k = 3), while various instruments were used to capture subjective sleep quality (k = 13). When comparing objective sleep quality following the overreaching intervention to baseline (or a control), there was a significant reduction in sleep efficiency (mean difference = -2.0%; 95% CI -3.2, -0.8%; Glass' Δ = -0.83; p < 0.01). In contrast, when comparing subjective sleep quality following the overreaching intervention to baseline (or a control), there was no effect on subjective sleep quality (Glass' Δ = -0.27; 95% CI -0.79, 0.25; p = 0.08). Importantly, none of the included studies were judged to have a low risk of bias. While acknowledging the need for more high-quality studies, it appears that overreaching from endurance-based training can deteriorate objective sleep without influencing the perception of sleep quality. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 21st November 2022, with the registration number CRD42022373204.
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.