Evidence Hub

Optimizing Post-activation Performance Enhancement in Athletic Tasks: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis for Prescription Variables and Research Methods

Kai Xu, A. Blazevich, Daniel Boullosa, R. Ramirez-Campillo, Ming-Yue Yin, Yu-Ming Zhong, Yuhang Tian, M. Finlay et al.

Sports Medicine, 2025

1,039 participants · 74 citations

Abstract

Post-activation performance enhancement (PAPE) has demonstrated efficacy in acutely improving athletic performance. However, its distinction from general warm-up (GW) effects remains ambiguous, and experimental designs adopted in most PAPE studies exhibit important limitations. The aims of this work are to (i) examine the effects of research methodology on PAPE outcomes, (ii) explore PAPE outcomes in relation to comparison methods, performance measures, GW comprehensiveness, recovery duration, participants’ characteristics, conditioning activity (CA) parameters, and (iii) make recommendations for future PAPE experimental designs on the basis of the results of the meta-analysis. Four databases were searched for peer-reviewed English-language literature. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and PEDro scale. PAPE groups were compared with control groups, pre-conditioning activity (pre-CA) performances were compared with post-conditioning activity (post-CA) performances throughout a verification test in PAPE groups, and control groups were compared before and after the “rest” period using a three-level meta-analysis. Further analyses, including subgroup analysis and both linear and nonlinear meta-regression methods, were used to explore the effect of different moderating factors on PAPE magnitude. A subgroup analysis of GW comprehensiveness was conducted using four classification methods. One method classified GW as non-comprehensive…

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: 1,039 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