Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28593083›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2017

DYNAMIC OSCILLATORY STRETCHING EFFICACY ON HAMSTRING EXTENSIBILITY AND STRETCH TOLERANCE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL.

Arie Michaeli, Jason Cameron Tee, Aimee Stewart

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03885557 (Comparison Between Dynamic Oscillatory Stretch Technique and Static Stretching In Reduced Hamstring Flexibility in Healthy Population), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03885557 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Dynamic Oscillatory Stretch Technique and Static Stretching In Reduced Hamstring Flexibility in Healthy Population: A Single Blind Randomized Control Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRiphah International UniversityRan2018 to 2018Enrolled80ConditionsHamstring TightnessArmsGroup I Experimental DOS, group II SS group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arie MichaeliPrivate Practice, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Jason Cameron TeeLeeds Beckett University, UK.
Aimee StewartUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, Aimee.Stewart@wits.ac.za.
Leeds Beckett University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile static stretch (SS), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) and oscillatory physiological mobilization techniques are documented to have positive effects on a range of motion (ROM), there are no reports on the effect of dynamic oscillatory stretching (DOS), a technique that combines these three techniques, on hamstring extensibility. PURPOSE: To determine whether DOS improves hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance to a greater degree than SS in asymptomatic young participants. STUDY

designRandomized Controlled Trial.

methodsSixty participants (47 females, 13 males, mean age 22 ± 1 years, height 166 ± 6 centimeters, body mass 67.6 ± 9.7 kg) completed a passive straight leg (SLR) to establish hamstring extensibility and stretch tolerance as perceived by participants, using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups (SS or DOS) or a placebo control (20 per group). Tests were repeated immediately following and one hour after each intervention. Data were assessed using a two-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) and

resultsImmediately post-intervention, there was a significant improvement in the hamstring extensibility as measured by the SLR in both the SS and DOS groups, with the DOS group exhibiting a significantly greater increase than the SS group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 86 ± 8°, DOS 94 ± 11°, p < 0.001). One hour post-intervention, hamstring extensibility in the DOS group remained elevated, while the SS group no longer differed from the control group (Control 73 ± 12°, SS 80 ± 8°, DOS 89 ± 12°, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the stretch tolerance remained significantly elevated for the SS group, but there was no difference between the control and DOS groups, (Control 4.6 ± 1.3, SS 5.9 ± 0.8, DOS 4.3 ± 1.0 AU, p < 0.001).

conclusionDOS was more effective than SS at achieving an immediate increase in hamstring extensibility, and DOS demonstrated an increased stretch tolerance one-hour post-intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2C.

Indexed as

Dynamic oscillatory stretchinghamstring extensibilitystretch tolerance

Identifiers

PMID28593083
PMCPMC5455180
OpenAlexW2795553395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.