Table 2.
Summary of reviews investigating the relationship between menstrual cycle phase and acute performance.
| Reference | SES | AMSTAR | QoE | Conclusion | Recommendations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blagrove | Some evidence in favor of no difference | 4 | 3 | Findings suggest that strength-related performance is not affected by menstrual cycle phase. | Future research in this field should ensure accurate identification of cycle phases and control for confounding factors that may cause variations in strength performance. |
| McNulty | Some evidence in favor of no difference | 7 | 3 | Results indicate that exercise performance may be trivially reduced during the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle compared to all other phases. | Due to the trivial effect size, large between-study variability and high quantity of poor-quality studies included in this review, general recommendations could not be made. |
| Meignie | Some evidence in favor of no difference | 6 | 2 | The effect of the menstrual cycle phase on sports performance-related is inconclusive. | More high-quality studies that monitor on-field performance parameters are required to enable recommendations for elite women athletes. |
| Romero-Parra | Sufficient evidence in favor of an effect | 5 | 3 | Authors reported that DOMS and strength loss are highest in the EFP and lowest in the MLF, though no significant differences were identified between phases. | Eumenorrheic women should consider lower training loads or longer recovery periods in the EFP and high training loads in the MLP.* |
| Thompson | Insufficient evidence to determine | 7 | 2 | The reviewed articles reported conflicting findings, often limited by small participant numbers and methodological issues, but the authors concluded that women's hormones might affect resistance training responses. | More high-quality experimental studies are needed to understand the effects of the menstrual cycle and oral contraceptives on acute and chronic responses to resistance training. |
SES, standardized effectiveness statement; AMSTAR, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; QoE, quality of evidence.
*We find these recommendations to be unfounded due to high levels of heterogeneity present within the analysis.