Do Compression Boots Speed Up Recovery?

Do your legs merely feel better after compression boots, or do they perform better in your next workout? There are signs that the boots can improve the feeling of recovery and ease soreness. Whether they improve performance in the next training session is much less clear. Sports recovery and medical applications need to be considered separately: they involve different circumstances and safety requirements.

How pneumatic compression boots work

Pneumatic compression boots surround the legs with several air chambers that inflate in sequence. Pressure commonly moves from the ankle through the calf to the thigh, a distal-to-proximal pattern. Chamber numbers and pressure ranges vary by device. The unit mmHg means millimeters of mercury, also familiar from blood pressure readings. Sports studies use different protocols; sessions of roughly 20–30 minutes at about 80 mmHg have been common. That describes research conditions, not a setting that suits everyone.

The technology has its roots in vascular medicine. Pneumatic compression devices were developed to help prevent deep vein thrombosis after surgery and treat lymphedema. During the 2010s, established manufacturers adapted the mechanical principle for sports recovery boots.

Static compression garments, such as stockings or sleeves, apply sustained pressure. One small direct comparison actually studied the elbow flexors of eight college students, not recovery boots for the legs: pneumatic treatment performed better than a continuously worn arm sleeve on some outcomes. DOMS stands for delayed-onset muscle soreness, meaning the pain and stiffness following unfamiliar or strenuous exercise, often during the next 24–72 hours. Source 1

Advertising for pneumatic compression boots commonly makes four claims:

• Less delayed-onset muscle soreness after exercise.
• A better feeling of recovery and greater perceived readiness for the next workout.
• Better objectively measured performance in subsequent training.
• Support for lymphatic drainage and reduced swelling.

Venous return, lymph flow, and tissue oxygen: the proposed mechanism

The main proposed effect is mechanical pumping: waves of pressure move from the foot toward the trunk, supporting the return of venous blood and lymphatic fluid. Research on intermittent pneumatic compression, or IPC, has reported measurable improvements in tissue oxygenation and fluid clearance in the compressed area. Sequential pulse compression has also been associated with an immediate increase in lower-limb blood flow. A double-blind randomized crossover study examined cardiovascular and blood-flow responses in athletes. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

The pumping action might also reduce fluid accumulation within muscle tissue after heavy exercise, known as interstitial edema. Research has additionally examined cardiovascular recovery after repeated sprints. Source 1

The sensation of pressure itself might contribute to feeling recovered. Pressure stimulates the skin and deeper sensory pathways, including awareness of tissues beneath the skin. A sensory effect could occur independently of blood-flow changes. Acute physiological responses reported in athletes are compatible with several mechanisms working together, rather than establishing one definitive explanation. Source 1

Which combination of pressure, duration, and inflation pattern best supports sports recovery remains uncertain. Clinical IPC and sports devices share a mechanical principle, but that does not establish a single protocol or mean that a setting appropriate for vascular disease is optimal for healthy athletes.

Which technical features matter when comparing devices?

Can a device reproduce the conditions used in a particular compression study? Specific technical information is more useful for answering that question than a brand name. The features below provide a framework for comparison; they are not universally established minimum requirements for effective or safe boots.

• Separate chambers allow different pressure sequences along the leg. The often-advertised four to six chambers are not a proven minimum; chamber count alone does not establish effectiveness.
• Adjustable pressure makes comparison with a specific research protocol easier. Ranges such as 40–100 mmHg are device specifications, not universal safety or effectiveness ranges. In particular, 60–90 mmHg has not been established as the best setting for most people.
• Inflation sequence, pressure differences, and overlap between adjacent chambers all matter. Simultaneous inflation differs from a directional pressure wave, but suitability still depends on the device’s complete design and intended use.
• Adjustable session duration and cycle timing help reproduce particular procedures. The option to run a 15–30-minute session does not itself demonstrate benefit. Fit, ease of use, and the instructions also belong in the comparison.

Entry-level, midrange, and premium devices can differ in pressure settings, chamber numbers, and programmability. Those price categories are not scientific quality grades. An expensive device is not automatically clinically tested; biocompatible materials or a documented pressure profile do not demonstrate better athletic performance either. Medical systems should be assessed according to their specific intended use and supporting documentation.

Chamber count, adjustable pressure, and programmability are therefore useful comparison points. So is the precise intended use for which the US Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has cleared a device. Clearance is relevant to its regulatory and safety context, but does not demonstrate better sports recovery.

How to interpret claims about compression boots

Research suggests possible benefits for soreness and the feeling of recovery, but the picture is not consistently positive. One favorable trial does not amount to a formal rating of “strong evidence,” just as one negative trial does not prove that nobody benefits. The outcome, comparison group, timing, and participants matter. Clinical vascular applications are separate questions.

Less muscle soreness: possible benefits, differing results

A 2024 meta-analysis in Biology of Sport included 17 studies with 319 participants. It found trivial to moderate effects on pain and soreness, trivial to small effects on muscle function, and highly variable results for muscle-damage markers. A 2025 PM&R study of 20 healthy, untrained male college students found benefits for pain and some mechanical muscle measures after jumping exercise. It tested 15-minute sessions immediately afterward and at 24, 48, and 72 hours; measurements were a pain scale and tensiomyography, not CK. Source 1 Source 2

There are also negative findings. In a randomized study of 45 healthy men, 30-minute IPC sessions after jumping exercise did not improve pain or muscle function relative to the comparison conditions. CK and LDH likewise showed no between-group advantage. A study of long-distance runners assessed soreness and CRP; CRP did not differ significantly. Different findings should not be collapsed into a uniformly positive effect. Source 1 Source 2

The static-compression comparison involved eight people and the arm. With daily pneumatic treatment over five days, peak pain, loss of range of motion, and one swelling measure were lower than with a continuously worn arm sleeve. This is a small positive signal, not evidence that leg boots are generally superior. The broader literature includes trained and untrained adults; some studies measure CK, while others do not. Source 1

Feeling more recovered: short-term signals, no guaranteed performance gain

A critically appraised review of endurance-sport evidence found possible short-term relief, but not sustained recovery from exercise-induced muscle damage. In a randomized trial of 56 ultramarathon runners, IPC reduced perceived muscle fatigue immediately after sessions on race day and the following day. Daily subjective scores and 400-meter run times, however, did not improve compared with rest. An immediately pleasant effect and faster recovery over several days are different outcomes. Source 1 Source 2

The 2026 basketball study examined acute jump and force measures; it does not demonstrate a benefit for subjective recovery. A study of 48 combat-sport athletes, by contrast, reported favorable changes in blood flow and mechanical muscle properties compared with passive rest. It compared pneumatic compression at 25 or 100 mmHg, cold compression, and rest. These different outcomes do not support a blanket claim of a consistently strong effect across sports. Source 1 Source 2

Feeling recovered can matter in everyday training: someone who feels sufficiently rested may be more willing to train again. That could influence training frequency even when objective performance measures do not change. Such a relationship is distinct from a demonstrated improvement in performance.

Better performance in the next workout: limited evidence

In the basketball study, IPC, cold-water immersion, and cryotherapy were no more effective than passive recovery at limiting the acute decline in the measured force and jump performance after practice. Other research examined cardiovascular recovery after sprints or muscle properties and reactive jump measures in combat sports. A cardiovascular or tissue measurement is not automatically a later athletic-performance advantage. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Whether these changes improve subsequent performance remains inconsistent overall. Where benefits occur, they tend to be small. The literature provides more support for feeling recovered than for an objective performance improvement in the next training session.

Medical uses: assess each condition and device separately

The review of breast-cancer-related lymphedema describes a possible benefit of IPC for reducing edema during the acute treatment phase, but explicitly cautions that the included research was of insufficient quality. Another meta-analysis concerns high-pressure compression for intermittent claudication, meaning exercise-related leg pain caused by impaired arterial circulation. These involve different populations and goals from sports recovery. Source 1 Source 2

The references cited here do not justify describing all clinical IPC applications as strongly supported. The additional Cochrane review concerns exercise therapy for intermittent claudication, not IPC for thrombosis prevention. Nor can findings on high-pressure compression for intermittent claudication be transferred directly to treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome. Source 1

Clinical claims concern medical devices cleared for particular uses, including thrombosis prevention or lymphedema management. The evidence for each application needs separate assessment. It does not provide an equivalent evidence rating for personal sports recovery.

Where the recovery evidence stands

The studies range from untrained healthy adults to competitive athletes. Common research conditions are not automatically the most effective conditions. CK is one of several markers; it cannot substitute for the entire experience of recovery or for actual performance.

The 2024 meta-analysis describes roughly 20–30 minutes at about 80 mmHg as commonly used protocols, not a proven optimum. The 2025 study instead used 15-minute sessions in untrained men and measured pain and tensiomyography. Attributing a CK-based success test or a universally optimal pressure window to that study would be incorrect. Source 1 Source 2

A subjective recovery score can help describe whether a session feels pleasant or useful. Heart rate variability, or HRV, instead captures a physiological pattern influenced by many factors. It is not a validated demonstration that boots work. Whether feeling better changes training frequency, and whether that produces better performance, are additional questions to test.

Multiday competitions and training camps are plausible settings for use, but the cited studies do not fully reproduce them. The basketball study assessed acute post-practice responses; the combat-sport study followed exercise and repeated treatments over 48 hours. Neither establishes better performance throughout a tournament. Source 1 Source 2

Broad extrapolations are also inappropriate for lymphedema and post-thrombotic syndrome. The lymphedema review identifies research-quality problems; the intermittent-claudication paper concerns an arterial condition, not post-thrombotic syndrome. Medical treatment, an appropriate device, and individual assessment belong together. Source 1 Source 2

For improving maximum performance, gradual management of training load, adequate sleep, and nutrition provide more dependable starting points. Chronic vascular disease or an acute deep vein thrombosis requires medical assessment. A recovery device cannot replace it.

Research protocols and ways to observe recovery

Research protocols help explain results; they are not personal prescriptions. For an individual observation, start with a clear question, such as whether your legs feel more comfortable after a comparable workload. Vascular disease or relevant medications warrant medical advice before starting. The steps below do not replace treatment or recommend a routine laboratory program.

1. Define the goal first: less soreness, a better feeling of recovery, or better performance? Brief notes on training load, sleep, and how you feel can provide a starting point. CK and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, or hs-CRP, are not required entry tests for using a recovery device. Laboratory testing needs its own medical or scientific question.

2. Follow the device instructions. The randomized jumping-exercise study used 30-minute sessions without an advantage over control; the review included different settings. A pressure used in a study is not an individually safe prescription. More pressure or a longer session does not automatically mean more benefit. Source 1 Source 2

3. Repeat observations at comparable times. Following soreness for 48–72 hours can show how it develops, but does not predict when CK will normalize. These studies do not validate HRV over one to two weeks or subjective scores over four to eight weeks as a boots-effectiveness test. Repeated hs-CRP testing should not be ordered solely for this purpose.

4. Daily notes, reviewed weekly, could record actual device use, a subjective recovery rating for each session, and a wearable measurement. Possible measurements include HRV, sleep duration, or a readiness score.

5. Consider training, sleep, and measurement conditions when making comparisons. If laboratory results are available for another medical reason, comparable conditions make interpretation easier; they still do not prove a device effect. Stop using the boots and seek prompt medical assessment for new calf pain, redness, or one-sided swelling. Suspected acute thrombosis requires immediate assessment. Numbness, tingling, or skin damage are also reasons to stop.

Who might consider compression boots, and when medical advice matters

Research includes healthy adults with different training backgrounds. Recreational and competitive athletes who train frequently may be interested in a comfortable recovery aid, but this does not establish a general advantage during multiday competitions.

Adults who stand for long periods at work and have no vascular contraindications are another possible group of users. Compression boots might be of interest to them, although this group is less well represented in sports-recovery research.

The following situations call for caution or medical assessment before use:

• Do not independently use recovery boots with suspected or known acute deep vein thrombosis; a previous thrombosis calls for an individual medical assessment.
• Peripheral arterial disease, serious heart disease, or unexplained swelling requires assessment of whether compression is suitable and which kind. Clinically targeted IPC is different from a consumer device used for self-treatment.
• Active infection, wounds, or substantial dermatitis on the leg require attention to the instructions and medical assessment.
• Marked neuropathy can reduce sensation and obscure warning signs of excessive pressure.
• Pregnancy, particularly with vascular problems or thrombosis risk, warrants medical advice before personal use.

If any of these apply, seek medical advice before use. Switching to a different device model does not remove the need for assessment.

FDA clearance, safety, and the distinction that matters

“FDA-cleared” and “FDA-approved” describe different regulatory pathways. For a medical device, approval may refer to review of a Premarket Approval Application, required for many high-risk Class III devices. Drug approval follows its own procedures. Neither term is an endorsement of every advertising claim.

In the 510(k) clearance pathway, a device is determined to be substantially equivalent to an already legally marketed comparator for a specified intended use. This clearance does not establish effectiveness for other advertised applications.

Not all sports devices fall outside FDA clearance. For Normatec 3, FDA documentation records 510(k) clearance K220217: intended use includes temporary relief of minor muscle aches and temporary improvement in circulation in treated areas in healthy adults. The listed settings include athlete training and home use. This establishes neither an improvement in competitive performance nor clearance of that model to treat every vascular disease. Source 1

Pressure, fit, and skin condition affect tolerability. Skin irritation, pain, numbness, or tingling deserve attention. The cited studies establish neither a reliable ranking of adverse-event frequencies nor a universal 30-minute boundary beyond which nerve compression begins. Individual risks and device-specific warnings matter more than a blanket time limit.

Home IPC has been studied under supervised conditions in clinical populations, including people living with chronic effects of stroke. Those findings cannot simply be transferred to personal sports recovery. Source 1

Medications and implants also belong in the safety assessment. The cited Cochrane reference does not substantiate the claim that anticoagulants alone are not a contraindication to IPC, or that IPC complements drug-based thrombosis prevention in clinical care. It therefore cannot justify individual clearance to use a device. Source 1

With diuretics, existing circulatory symptoms and the person’s treatment should also be considered; these sources do not demonstrate a specific interaction caused by boots. For implanted electronics, device instructions matter: a mechanical effect does not rule out electrical components or device-specific restrictions. Boots do not replace treatment of an underlying condition.

Blood tests and wearables: measuring recovery

The personal feeling of recovery is a relevant outcome in its own right. To assess a session, someone can record it alongside training load and sleep. An automatic package of blood tests and wearable readings is unnecessary. Even carefully matched before-and-after observations remain subject to normal fluctuations and other changes.

The proposed measurements address different aspects:

• Creatine kinase, or CK, can rise after exercise and is used as a muscle-damage marker in some IPC studies. It is not a direct overall recovery score and need not be normal within 48–72 hours.
• Lactate testing can describe the immediate exercise response in a specific performance-assessment question. It is not part of a usual blood panel and does not demonstrate that subsequent soreness has resolved.
• Use the same instrument when comparing subjective recovery ratings. Borg scales and session-RPE describe exertion; they are not automatically recovery scales. HRV and wearable readiness scores are different measurements again, and boots are not the only factor influencing them.
• hs-CRP measures systemic inflammation, not specifically muscle recovery. The cited research does not justify routine repeated hs-CRP measurements over four to eight weeks to evaluate a compression device.

Combining CK, HRV trends, and a subjective recovery score has not been established here as a validated way to measure success. Nor can a before-and-after comparison alone show that the boots caused a change.

If measurements change in a direction compatible with the proposed mechanism, the device might have contributed. That is a possible explanation, not proof of causation. Unchanged measurements also help interpretation: under the observed conditions, the measured outcome did not visibly change. This still does not establish a universal conclusion about the device’s value. No single blood marker captures recovery as a whole.

How to interpret repeat recovery measurements

Feeling fresher can be useful in everyday life. How large a difference needs to be to matter personally depends on the goal; that is not automatically clinical significance. Expectations can influence perception, especially after an expensive purchase. It is therefore worth recording pleasant effects alongside any lack of change in training performance.

Objective measurements can complement a research question, but they also have context and limitations. CK depends in part on exercise and sampling time; one measurement after 48–72 hours does not confirm complete recovery. HRV trends over several days can differ from individual morning readings, but are not a specific IPC test. hs-CRP should likewise be interpreted according to a medical question, not a universal boots timetable.

The cited studies do not validate a CK cutoff for clearance to train or an hs-CRP decline as proof of a device effect. Specific thresholds such as “no more than 1.5 times baseline after 48 hours,” or an hs-CRP fall of 0.3–0.5 mg/L over four to eight weeks, must therefore not be used as success criteria. A change in HRV alone is not proof of adequate recovery either.

Self-observation also includes findings that do not match expectations. Selecting only supportive measurements while overlooking contradictory ones can produce a misleading result. Considering all observations together helps avoid that bias.

When compression boots are not the right answer

Persistent leg swelling, calf pain, one-sided edema, or changes in skin color warrant medical assessment. The same applies to other symptoms that could suggest deep vein thrombosis or chronic venous insufficiency. Depending on the symptoms, this may involve vascular assessment or primary-care evaluation of chronic edema. Suspected acute thrombosis requires immediate medical assessment.

The sports uses discussed here concern compression boots as a recovery aid for healthy adults. If vascular disease is suspected, buying a device does not replace an examination.

Frequently asked questions

Do compression boots actually work?

For some people, they may temporarily reduce soreness or the feeling of fatigue. The 2024 review and 2025 trial provide positive signals, while other trials found no advantage. Whether boots improve performance in the next session is less clear. A routine blood-testing program is neither necessary nor a validated way to assess personal benefit. Source 1 Source 2

Are compression boots FDA-cleared?

Some models have 510(k) clearance for precisely defined purposes. Those can include temporary relief of minor muscle aches and increased local circulation, as Normatec 3 K220217 illustrates. It is therefore incorrect to say that all sports applications fall outside any clearance. Clearance is based on substantial equivalence to a legally marketed comparator; it does not confirm arbitrary performance or healing claims. Source 1

How long and how often are compression boots used?

Studies use different schedules: for example, 30 minutes in the randomized jumping-exercise trial, and commonly about 20–30 minutes at roughly 80 mmHg in the systematic review. Commonly used does not mean optimal. These findings do not establish a universal frequency or an individually safe setting; the device, instructions, and personal circumstances matter. Source 1 Source 2

Who should not use compression boots?

With acute deep vein thrombosis, or a previous thrombosis without medical clearance, compression boots should not be used independently for recovery. Safety concerns also include peripheral vascular disease without medical assessment, active leg infections or wounds, and severe peripheral neuropathy alongside unrecognized peripheral vascular disease. These circumstances call for medical advice before compression therapy.

What does research say about compression boots?

The sports-recovery meta-analysis suggests possible benefits mainly for perceived soreness, with smaller or variable effects on other outcomes. The data do not justify a blanket strong-evidence rating for every recovery goal or a universally optimal pressure range. Positive signals and negative trials both belong in the assessment. Source 1

Are compression boots better than compression garments?

The comparison cited here found advantages for pneumatic compression on certain outcomes, but studied only eight people and their elbow flexors. It does not support a general conclusion about leg boots versus stockings. The methods differ in pressure pattern and wearing time: boots provide changing pressure, whereas garments provide sustained pressure. Source 1

How can you tell whether compression boots help?

Start with a concrete question: is soreness lower after a similar workload, does the session feel pleasant, or does actual performance change? Sleep and training volume belong in that comparison. CK, lactate, HRV, and hs-CRP answer different questions and do not collectively form a validated boots-effectiveness test. Medically ordered laboratory results should be interpreted in relation to the reason they were ordered.

Are compression boots safe during pregnancy?

Pneumatic compression is used clinically during pregnancy under medical supervision, but data specifically on sports recovery in pregnancy are limited. Medical advice before use is appropriate, especially with previous vascular problems or relevant risks such as varicose veins, previous deep vein thrombosis, or preeclampsia. Clinical use does not provide a blanket safety assurance for personal recovery devices.

Sources

• Winke M, Williamson S (2018). Comparison of a Pneumatic Compression Device to a Compression Garment During Recovery from DOMS. International journal of exercise science, 11(3), 375-383. https://doi.org/10.70252/YXDX1767
• Aoyagi M, Komatsu T, Togashi I, Iriguchi K, Nagao M, Kubota A, Izawa H, Someya Y, Oshio K, Takazawa Y (2026). Effects of intermittent pneumatic compression device on the improvement of tissue oxygen saturation and fluid clearance at the compression site. Frontiers in physiology, 17, 1725445. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2026.1725445
• Brock KA, Eberman LE, Laird RH, Elmer DJ, Games KE (2020). Sequential Pulse Compression’s Effect on Blood Flow in the Lower-Extremity. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 29(1), 7-11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2017-0124
• Maia F, Machado MVB, Silva G, Nakamura FY, Ribeiro J (2024). Hemodynamic Effects of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on Athletes: A Double-Blinded Randomized Crossover Study. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 19(9), 932-938. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2024-0017
• Artés A, Ferrer-Ramos P, Javierre C, Viscor G, García I (2024). Effects of intermittent pneumatic compression on the recovery of cardiovascular parameters after repeated sprint exercise. European journal of applied physiology, 124(4), 1037-1048. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-023-05333-x
• Maia F, Nakamura FY, Sarmento H, Marcelino R, Ribeiro J (2024). Effects of lower-limb intermittent pneumatic compression on sports recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Biology of sport, 41(4), 263-275. https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2024.133665
• Gu Z, Dai J, Xu K, Chen G, Yang X, Shen Y, Yin Z, Huang S (2025). Effects of intermittent pneumatic compression on delayed onset muscle soreness and recovery of muscular fatigue. PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 17(9), 1080-1090. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.13377
• Wiecha S, Jarocka M, Wiśniowski P, Cieślinski M, Price S, Makaruk B, Kotowska J, Drabarek D, Cieślinski I, Sacewicz T (2021). The efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression and negative pressure therapy on muscle function, soreness and serum indices of muscle damage: a randomized controlled trial. BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 13(1), 144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-021-00373-2
• Draper SN, Kullman EL, Sparks KE, Little K, Thoman J (2020). Effects of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness (DOMS) in Long Distance Runners. International journal of exercise science, 13(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.70252/HSPN3402
• Stedge HL, Armstrong K (2021). The Effects of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on the Reduction of Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage in Endurance Athletes: A Critically Appraised Topic. Journal of sport rehabilitation, 30(4), 668-671. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2020-0364
• Heapy AM, Hoffman MD, Verhagen HH, Thompson SW, Dhamija P, Sandford FJ, Cooper MC (2018). A randomized controlled trial of manual therapy and pneumatic compression for recovery from prolonged running - an extended study. Research in sports medicine (Print), 26(3), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15438627.2018.1447469
• Cabarkapa D, Cabarkapa DV, Nagy D, Repasi R, Laczko T, Ratgeber L (2026). Acute Effects of Three Recovery Interventions on Post-Practice Vertical Jump Force-Time Metrics in Female Basketball Players. Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk11010044
• Trybulski R, Klich S, Valera-Calero JA, Kawczynski A, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Kuzdżał A (2025). Effect of pneumatic and cold compression on muscle performance and recovery in combat sports athletes. Scientific reports, 15(1), 44993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-29014-1
• Rogan S, Taeymans J, Luginbuehl H, Aebi M, Mahnig S, Gebruers N (2016). Therapy modalities to reduce lymphoedema in female breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast cancer research and treatment, 159(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3919-4
• Oresanya L, Mazzei M, Bashir R, Farooqui A, Athappan G, Roth S, Choi ET, van Bemmelen P (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-pressure intermittent limb compression for the treatment of intermittent claudication. Journal of vascular surgery, 67(2), 620-628.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2017.11.044
• Lane R, Harwood A, Watson L, Leng GC (2017). Exercise for intermittent claudication. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 12(12), CD000990. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000990.pub4
• Faulkner J, Paine E, Hudson N, Hannah S, Dennis-Jones A, Martinelli L, Hobbs H (2025). Effect of using home-based dynamic intermittent pneumatic compression therapy during periods of physical activity on functional and vascular health outcomes in chronic stroke: A randomized controlled clinical trial. PloS one, 20(2), e0318942. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318942