Back to all available

Efficacy of Post-Exercise Recovery Strategies for Elite Soccer Players: A Network Meta-Analysis

rehabilitation
sports-medicine

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to systematically compare the efficacy of various recovery strategies for improving neuromuscular function, muscle damage, and subjective fatigue in elite soccer players following matches or validated simulations, and to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical practice.
Methods: Following PRISMA-NMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed, E mbase , C ochrane Library , Web of Science, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials evaluating post-match or post-simulation recovery strategies in professional and semi-professional soccer players. A Bayesian random-effects model was applied to conduct the network meta-analysis (NMA). Effect sizes were reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI), and intervention efficacy was quantified using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values.
Results: Twenty-three RCTs involving 388 participants and 17 recovery interventions were included. Key findings were as follows: (1) F ar-infrared therapy (FIR) was most effective in improving C ountermovement jump (CMJ) height (SUCRA = 98.3%); (2) I ntermittent negative pressure therapy (INPT) produced the greatest reduction in C reatine kinase (CK) levels (SUCRA = 91.0%); (3) P ortable cold compression therapy (PCMcold) had the strongest effect on alleviating M uscle soreness (MS) (SUCRA = 98.9%); (4) FIR and I ntermittent vascular occlusion (IVO) significantly improved M aximal voluntary contraction (MVC), although H ypoxic intervention (Hyp) ranked highest (SUCRA = 89.8%); and (5) no intervention significantly improved 20-m sprint performance (all 95% CrI included zero), and although IVO ranked first (SUCRA = 84.5%), its evidence reliability was low.
Conclusion: Personalized post-match recovery in elite soccer should be based on specific targets . FIR is recommended for CMJ restoration, INPT for muscle damage repair, PCMcold for reducing subjective soreness, and FIR may be considered for MVC recovery. No superior intervention was identified for 20-m sprint recovery; therefore, basic recovery measures are advised. Future multi-arm RCTs are required to validate combined recovery strategies and standardize intervention parameters.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].