## 2 Methods
### Effect Measures  
In this systematic review, the primary outcome variables were the kinematic parameters of the bench press, specifically:  
* Peak velocity (PV)--the peak velocity of the barbell.
* Mean velocity (MV)--the average velocity of barbell movement in a given set or repetition.
* Peak power (PP)--the peak power output during the movement.
* Mean power (MP)--the average power generated in a set or repetition.  
Due to the heterogeneity of the studies and the limited ability to conduct a full meta-analysis (stemming from the lack of a unified measurement protocol and varying methods of reporting results), the main effect measures presented in the included studies were:  
Change in mean values--e.g., an increase in PV (m/s) following a PAPE protocol compared to a control condition or baseline values.  
Percentage change (%A)--most commonly reported in the original publications, e.g., \"+7% PV\" or \"+15.9% PP\" relative to the baseline.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Inclusion Criteria**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Exclusion Criteria**} \\ \hline Population & - & Adults aged 18–50, healthy, with no contraindications to resistance training. & - & Individuals with contraindications to resistance training or with serious health issues that could affect the reliability of the results. \\  & - & Participants with experience in strength training (recreational or professional athletes). & - & Individuals with contraindications to resistance training or with serious health issues that could affect the reliability of the results. \\ \hline Intervention & - & Various types of resistance training & - \\  & & protocols or methods focusing on the bench & - & Studies in which the intervention does not involve strength/resistance training. \\  & - & Interventions include the measurement of & - & Protocols that do not focus on the bench \\  & - & barbell velocity (e.g., mean or peak), power & - & press as the primary exercise. \\  & & (mean/peak power), and/or other & - & Lack of kinematic measurements. \\  & & kinematic parameters during the & - & Lack of kinematic measurements. \\  & & bench press. & - & Lack of kinematic measurements. \\ \hline Comparison & - & No intervention, a different type of physical activity, or a different resistance training & - \\  & & protocol (e.g., bench press with different loading parameters), provided the study & - \\  & & includes a control or comparison group. & - \\  & - & Alternatively, a comparison of different & - \\  & & protocols (e.g., with and without additional & \\  & & activation methods). & - \\ \hline Outcome & - & Changes in barbell velocity parameters. & - & Lack of complete data preventing interpretation of the results. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the PICOS framework.  
Where statistical significance values were provided by the authors of the source studies, a \(p\)-value < 0.05 was considered the threshold for significance. Since the majority of studies reported PAPE effects in the form of percentage increases or decreases in barbell velocity or power, no standardized effect size measure (e.g., Cohen's d, Hedges' g) was calculated.  
Unfortunately, data presented as 95% confidence intervals (CI) were rare in the original articles, making it difficult to precisely define the range of measurement uncertainty (Table 2).  
In cases where the effects of different types of conditioning activities (e.g., traditional bench press, occlusion variants, cambered bar bench press, etc.) were analyzed, the differential effect (effect size) was usually presented as the percentage increase or decrease in specific parameters (PV, PP, MV) relative to baseline or control values. This allows for a qualitative comparison between intervention variants and supports conclusions about the effectiveness of PAPE protocols.