ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Neurophysiological and neuromuscular responses associated with the repeated bout effect following eccentric exercise in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscle damage severity decreases after repeated eccentric exercise bouts (the repeated bout effect [RBE]), but whether accompanying neural and neuromuscular changes contribute to protection or arise secondary to reduced damage remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared neurophysiological and neuromuscular responses between initial and repeated eccentric bouts in healthy adults. Eight databases were searched from November 1990 to January 2025, and Hedges' g was calculated where outcomes were comparable. Given the small number of contributing studies, all pooled analyses were considered exploratory. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Twitch/evoked force showed recovery-compatible point estimates at 24 h (g = 1.02, 95% CI -0.03-2.06) and 48 h (g = 0.50, 95% CI 0.08-0.92). Voluntary activation findings were mixed. TMS-derived voluntary activation produced positive single-study estimates at 24 h (g = 1.10, 95% CI 0.29-1.92) and 48 h (g = 1.06, 95% CI 0.26-1.87), whereas pooled ITT-derived estimates were imprecise at 24 h (g = 0.36, 95% CI -0.92-1.63) and recovery-compatible but based on only two studies at 48 h (g = 0.44, 95% CI 0.03-0.85). M-wave/Mmax showed no consistent between-bout pattern. Corticospinal, intracortical, spinal, reticulospinal, motor-unit and EMG findings were limited, inconsistent or directionally unclear. Neural and neuromuscular changes accompany the RBE, but whether they contribute to protection or reflect reduced damage remains unresolved. Peripheral contractile outcomes showed the most consistent recovery-compatible pattern, whereas evidence concerning central activation and motor-unit behaviour remained limited or inconsistent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42762323What 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.