Trial reportScientific reports2025
Post activation potentiation effect of different preloading protocols on sprint performance.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The effect of blood flow restriction training with different intermittent durations on the post-activation potentiation of lower limbs:a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the postactivation potentiation effects of different preloading protocols involving blood flow-restricted plyometric jumps on sprint performance. In this randomized crossover experimental study, 15 athletes with at least seven years of sporting experience participated voluntarily. The participants underwent several anthropometric measurements (height, body weight, body mass index, and body fat percentage) as well as performance measurements (10-meter and 20-meter sprints). The data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical software. The effect size and percentage changes are reported to illustrate the practical significance of the differences. Cohen's d test was used to determine the effect size. Differences between repeated measures data were analyzed using repeated-measures one-way ANOVA. Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine the protocols responsible for the differences. The eta-squared (η²) value was used to express the effect size. The significance level was set at p = 0.05, with 95% confidence interval. In conclusion, all preloading protocols demonstrated a positive post-activation potentiation effect on sprint performance. However, the greatest potentiating effect was observed with the preloading protocol involving blood flow-restricted plyometric jumps with a weighted vest.
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.