↓ Skip to main content

Compression Garments and Recovery from Exercise: A Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
148 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
412 Mendeley
Title
Compression Garments and Recovery from Exercise: A Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0728-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Freddy Brown, Conor Gissane, Glyn Howatson, Ken van Someren, Charles Pedlar, Jessica Hill

Abstract

Adequate recovery from exercise is essential to maintain performance throughout training and competition. While compression garments (CG) have been demonstrated to accelerate recovery, the literature is clouded by conflicting results and uncertainty over the optimal conditions of use. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of CG on the recovery of strength, power and endurance performance following an initial bout of resistance, running, or non-load-bearing endurance (metabolic) exercise. Change-score data were extracted from 23 peer-reviewed studies on healthy participants. Recovery was quantified by converting into standardized mean effect sizes (ES) [±95% confidence interval (CI)]. The effects of time (0-2, 2-8, 24, >24 h), pressure (<15 vs. ≥15 mmHg) and training status (trained vs. untrained) were also assessed. CG demonstrated small, very likely benefits [p < 0.001, ES = 0.38 (95% CI 0.25, 0.51)], which were not influenced by pressure (p = 0.06) or training status (p = 0.64). Strength recovery was subject to greater benefits than other outcomes [p < 0.001, ES = 0.62 (95% CI 0.39, 0.84)], displaying large, very likely benefits at 2-8 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.14 (95% CI 0.72, 1.56)] and >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.03 (95% CI 0.48, 1.57)]. Recovery from using CG was greatest following resistance exercise [p < 0.001, ES = 0.49 (95% CI 0.37, 0.61)], demonstrating the largest, very likely benefits at >24 h [p < 0.001, ES = 1.33 (95% CI 0.80, 1.85)]. Recovery from metabolic exercise (p = 0.01) was significant, although large, very likely benefits emerged only for cycling performance at 24 h post-exercise [p = 0.01, ES = 1.05 (95% CI 0.25, 1.85)]. The largest benefits resulting from CG were for strength recovery from 2 to 8 h and >24 h. Considering exercise modality, compression most effectively enhanced recovery from resistance exercise, particularly at time points >24 h. The use of CG would also be recommended to enhance next-day cycling performance. The benefits of CG in relation to applied pressures and participant training status are unclear and limited by the paucity of reported data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 148 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 412 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 411 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 15%
Student > Master 53 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 10%
Researcher 30 7%
Other 20 5%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 146 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 163 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Computer Science 5 1%
Other 30 7%
Unknown 154 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 238. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#159,613
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#145
of 2,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,421
of 323,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#8
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.