## 3 Results
### Meta-Analytic Findings
#### 3.4.3 Moderator Variable Analysis on Garment Type  
For speed, the moderator variable analysis revealed significant effects on whole-body suit (14 comparisons from four studies; \(SMD\) = 0.277; 95% CI = 0.100 to 0.454; \(p\) = 0.002; \(I^{2}\) = 0.0%; Figure 5), and a funnel plot indicated potential asymmetry with three imputed values, and this bias was additionally observed in the [PERSON]'s regression test ([PERSON]'s \(\beta_{0}\) = 6.424 with \(p\) = 0.0004; Supplementary Figure S7), but lower-body suit failed to show positive effectiveness (10 comparisons from five studies) (Supplementary Table S5). The analysis on endurance revealed positive effects on a lower-body suit (27 comparisons from 14 studies; \(SMD\) = 0.136; 95% CI = 0.030 to 0.241; \(p\) = 0.012; \(I^{2}\) = 0.0%; Figure 6), and a funnel plot showed minimal publication bias, and this level was found in the [PERSON]'s regression test ([PERSON]'s \(\beta_{0}\) = \(-\)0.841 with \(p\) = 0.333; Supplementary Figure S8). However, no significant effects were observed for the upper-body suit (two comparisons from one study) and whole-body suit (four comparisons from two studies) (Supplementary Table S5). For functional motor performance, the moderator variable analysis found positive effects on upper-body suit (four comparisons from two studies; \(SMD\) = 0.460; 95% CI = 0.153 to 0.766; \(p\) = 0.003; \(I^{2}\) = 32.33%; Figure 7) and lower-body suit (55 comparisons from 14 studies; \(SMD\) = 0.126; 95% CI = 0.051 to 0.200; \(p\) = 0.001; \(I^{2}\) = 0.0%; Figure 8), and each funnel plots showed minimal publication bias, and this level was found in the [PERSON]'s regression test on both upper- ([PERSON]'s \(\beta_{0}\) = 3.861 with \(p\) = 0.136; Supplementary Figure S9) and lower-body suit (%; [PERSON]'s \(\beta_{0}\) = \(-\)0.405 with \(p\) = 0.524; Supplementary Figure S10). For remaining power and strength, and sport-related performances, moderator variable analyses failed to report any significant effects depending on different compression garment types (Supplementary Table S5).  
Figure 4: The effect of the compression garment on the functional motor performance for moderately trained adults. _Abbreviations. SMD_: standardized mean difference, LL: lower limit, UL: upper limit, CIs: confidence intervals. A more positive size indicates improved functional performance. Note that gray square indicates individual effect size with 95% CI. Red diamond demonstrates overall effect size [11; 19; 21; 33].  
Figure 5: The effect of the compression garment on the speed for the whole-body suit. _Abbreviations. SMD_: standardized mean difference, LL: lower limit, UL: upper limit, CIs: confidence intervals, h: hour. A more positive size indicates increased speed performance. Note that gray square indicates individual effect size with 95% CI. Red diamond demonstrates overall effect size [17; 37; 44; 47].  
Figure 6: The effect of the compression garment on the endurance for the lower-body suit. _Abbreviations. SMD_: standardized mean difference, LL: lower limit, UL: upper limit, CIs: confidence intervals, AnT: anaerobic threshold, AT: aerobic threshold, min: minute, w: watt. A more positive size indicates impr0 oved endurance performance. Note that gray square indicates individual effect size with 95% CI. Red diamond demonstrates overall effect size [6; 7; 32; 33; 35; 39; 40; 41; 42; 45; 50; 54; 60; 62].  
Figure 7: The effect of the compression garment on the functional motor performance for the upper-body suit. _Abbreviations. SMD_: standardized mean difference, LL: lower limit, UL: upper limit, CIs: confidence intervals, JTHFT: Jabsen Taylor hand function test, CV: coefficient of variance. A more positive size indicates improved functional motor performance. Note that gray square indicates individual effect size with 95% CI. Red diamond demonstrates overall effect size [19; 59].