↓ Skip to main content

Whole-body cryotherapy (extreme cold air exposure) for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
28 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
130 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
251 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole-body cryotherapy (extreme cold air exposure) for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010789.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph T Costello, Philip RA Baker, Geoffrey M Minett, Francois Bieuzen, Ian B Stewart, Chris Bleakley

Abstract

Recovery strategies are often used with the intention of preventing or minimising muscle soreness after exercise. Whole-body cryotherapy, which involves a single or repeated exposure(s) to extremely cold dry air (below -100 °C) in a specialised chamber or cabin for two to four minutes per exposure, is currently being advocated as an effective intervention to reduce muscle soreness after exercise. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of whole-body cryotherapy (extreme cold air exposure) for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the British Nursing Index and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. We also searched the reference lists of articles, trial registers and conference proceedings, handsearched journals and contacted experts.The searches were run in August 2015. We aimed to include randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compared the use of whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) versus a passive or control intervention (rest, no treatment or placebo treatment) or active interventions including cold or contrast water immersion, active recovery and infrared therapy for preventing or treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults. We also aimed to include randomised trials that compared different durations or dosages of WBC. Our prespecified primary outcomes were muscle soreness, subjective recovery (e.g. tiredness, well-being) and adverse effects. Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted and cross-checked data. Where appropriate, we pooled results of comparable trials. The random-effects model was used for pooling where there was substantial heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Four laboratory-based randomised controlled trials were included. These reported results for 64 physically active predominantly young adults (mean age 23 years). All but four participants were male. Two trials were parallel group trials (44 participants) and two were cross-over trials (20 participants). The trials were heterogeneous, including the type, temperature, duration and frequency of WBC, and the type of preceding exercise. None of the trials reported active surveillance of predefined adverse events. All four trials had design features that carried a high risk of bias, potentially limiting the reliability of their findings. The evidence for all outcomes was classified as 'very low' quality based on the GRADE criteria.Two comparisons were tested: WBC versus control (rest or no WBC), tested in four studies; and WBC versus far-infrared therapy, also tested in one study. No studies compared WBC with other active interventions, such as cold water immersion, or different types and applications of WBC.All four trials compared WBC with rest or no WBC. There was very low quality evidence for lower self-reported muscle soreness (pain at rest) scores after WBC at 1 hour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.42 to -0.12; 20 participants, 2 cross-over trials); 24 hours (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.33) and 48 hours (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.37 to 0.21), both with 38 participants, 2 cross-over studies, 1 parallel group study; and 72 hours (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.24; 29 participants, 1 cross-over study, 1 parallel group study). Of note is that the 95% CIs also included either no between-group differences or a benefit in favour of the control group. One small cross-over trial (9 participants) found no difference in tiredness but better well-being after WBC at 24 hours post exercise. There was no report of adverse events.One small cross-over trial involving nine well-trained runners provided very low quality evidence of lower levels of muscle soreness after WBC, when compared with infrared therapy, at 1 hour follow-up, but not at 24 or 48 hours. The same trial found no difference in well-being but less tiredness after WBC at 24 hours post exercise. There was no report of adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) reduces self-reported muscle soreness, or improves subjective recovery, after exercise compared with passive rest or no WBC in physically active young adult males. There is no evidence on the use of this intervention in females or elite athletes. The lack of evidence on adverse events is important given that the exposure to extreme temperature presents a potential hazard. Further high-quality, well-reported research in this area is required and must provide detailed reporting of adverse events.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 130 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 245 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 19%
Student > Master 47 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 17%
Researcher 28 11%
Unspecified 22 9%
Other 64 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 34%
Sports and Recreations 46 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 17%
Unspecified 34 14%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Other 33 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 390. 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 04 May 2019.
All research outputs
#25,085
of 12,973,070 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 10,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#623
of 245,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,973,070 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 10,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 245,897 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.