Table 1.

Effects of recovery techniques on the kinetics of DOMS and perceived fatigue.

	Subjects (n)	Experimental group (n)	SMD	IC	I2
DOMS	1188	106	−0.78	−0.94; −0.61	56.62
Active recovery	90	8	−0.94	−1.61; −0.28	*
Stretching	67	5	0.15	0.00; 0.29
Massage	158	14	−2.26	−3.05; −1.47	*
Massage + Stretching	N/A
Compression Garments	160	16	−0.92	−1.34; −0.50	*
Electrostimulation	94	8	−0.28	−0.59; 0.03
Immersion	379	34	−0.47	−0.77; −0.18	*
Contrast water therapy	144	12	−0.40	−0.73; −0.07	*
Cryotherapy/ cryostimulation	72	6	−0.53	−1.04; −0.03	*
Hyperbaric therapy	24	3	0.55	−0.12; 1.22
Perceived Fatigue	266	27	−1.40	−1.92; −0.89	32.65
Active recovery	33	4	0.64	−0.43; 1.70
Stretching	30	1	−0.21	−1.04; 0.62
Massage	64	7	−2.55	−3.49; −1.62	*
Massage + stretching	9	1	−4.34	−7.20; −1.47	*
Compression Garments	28	3	−0.88	−1.34; −0.50	*
Electrostimulation	11	1	−0.28	−0.59; 0.03
Immersion	75	8	−1.16	−1.94; −0.39	*
Contrast water therapy	16	2	−0.04	−0.86; 0.79
Cryotherapy/ cryostimulation	NA
Hyperbaric therapy	NA

SMD, standardized mean differences; IC, interval of confidence; NA, not available;

^*significant; − indicates a decrease and + indicates an increase in DOMS and perceived fatigue after the recovery strategy.