Rowsell 2009.

Methods	Randomised controlled design (pair‐matched according to playing position)
Participants	N = 20 male soccer players, mean age: 15.9 (SD: 0.6)
Interventions	CWI (n = 6): Immersion to mesosternale level in 10°C water, 1 minute x 5, manual water agitation throughout. Between immersions participants rested for 60 seconds WWI (n = 7): Immersion to mesosternale level in 34°C water, 5 x 1 minute, manual water agitation throughout. Between immersions participants rested for 60 seconds Both groups: Standardardised warm up and cool down, carbohydrate, protein and fluid ingestion
Outcomes	Subjective recovery Rating of fatigue (visual analogue scale, 1 to 10) Rating or recovery (visual analogue scale, 1 to 10 ): physical / mental Do you believe that the treatment enhanced recovery from the previous match and improved subsequent physical performance (Yes/No) Pain Leg soreness (visual analogue scale, 1 to 10) Power Countermovement jump (jump height ‐ standing reach height, cm) Functional assessment Time to complete exercise test (repeated sprint (12 x 20 m), seconds) Biochemical Inflammatory: IL‐1b (pg/ml); IL‐6 (pg/ml); IL‐10 (pg/ml) Muscle damage: myoglobin (ng/ml), LDH (U/L), CK (U/L) (Follow‐up for all outcomes: ˜ 22 hours after tournament)
Exercise type / intensity	Soccer tournament, 4 matches in 4 days, similar tactical strategies adopted in each match. Ambient temperature during matches ranged from 25 to 36°C, relative humidity 25 to 58%.
Time between completing exercise and initiating intervention	20 minutes after each match
Participants' fitness level	High performance male junior soccer players
Notes	Data on muscle soreness and subjective recovery (fatigue) extracted from graph. Other data on subjective recovery were not available (rating of physical and mental recovery) N = 7 players sustained injuries throughout the tournament and were not included in the final analysis Our analysis only included outcomes recorded at the end of the tournament. Outcomes undertaken before each of the games were not extracted or included in our analysis. An additional report of the trial (Rowsell 2011) was located in November 2011 ‐ this will be assessed in the update of this review.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	'randomly allocated' (Methods, participants, pg. 566), "players matched for playing position" (pg. 566)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"randomly allocated" (Methods, participants, pg. 566), no further details in manuscript
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Participants	High risk	No blinding.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Personnel	High risk	No blinding.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) Outcome assessors	Unclear risk	No details in manuscript
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The number of participants randomised to each group is not clear n = 7 were excluded from the analysis with reasons (all 7 sustained a soft tissue injury and were unable to complete the study)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No published protocol available Outcomes and follow‐ups stated in methods Means and SD presented by intervention group for all outcomes, at all follow‐ups (except physical and mental recovery which stated no between group difference)
Other bias	Low risk	Players in each group aged matched according to playing position so likely to undertake similar exercise intensity; no measure of cumulative game time during the tournament Standardised carbohydrate ingestion and stretching between games