Evidence Hub

Effects of post-exercise compression garments on subsequent endurance performance and delayed-onset muscle soreness in endurance athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hagner-Derengowska M, Xerri de Caro J, Dziecioł-Anikiej Z, Sozańska A, Bjelica D, Gonçalves C, Trybulski R

Frontiers in physiology, 2026

158 participants

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether post-exercise compression garments improve subsequent endurance performance and delayed-onset or perceived muscle soreness in adult endurance athletes.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science through 19 May 2026 for controlled intervention studies comparing post-exercise compression garments with no compression, usual clothing, sham/placebo, passive recovery, or lower-pressure controls. RoB 2 and GRADE assessed risk of bias and certainty. Soreness was synthesized as Hedges g using random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman inference; performance was synthesized narratively. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/46ck9).

Results: Of 503 records screened, nine studies were included (158 participants; six crossover, three parallel-group). All studies included in the final evidence base were randomized parallel-group or crossover trials. Ten of 11 assessments were high risk. At approximately 24 hours, soreness favored compression but was uncertain (four studies; Hedges g = 0.62, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.82; I2 = 74.0%). Immediate-to-2-hour acute post-exercise perceived soreness/discomfort was also uncertain (three studies; g = 0.38, 95% CI -0.67 to 1.42; I2 = 51.0%). Performance findings were not pooled because of heterogeneity or non-isolatable recovery effects. Certainty was very low.

Conclusions: Soreness estimates were directionally favorable to compression, but…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 158 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free