ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2017
Comparison of immediate effects between two medical stretching techniques on Hamstrings flexibility.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] The aim of this study was to compare immediate effects between new medical stretching (NMS) and conventional medical stretching (CMS) techniques on Hamstrings flexibility. [Subjects and Methods] Thirteen healthy adult males, with finger floor distance (FFD) less than zero centimeter, without known musculoskeletal and neurological impairment in spine or lower extremities, were included. The subjects were randomly allocated to two groups. The subjects were instructed to perform NMS and CMS (hold for 30 seconds once, twice for each side of lower extremity) for both sides (total two minutes, only one session for one day). The interval between the two techniques was one week. FFD was measured with digital standing trunk flexion meter at the pre-intervention and post-intervention of both techniques. [Results] The mean values of FFD improved at the post-interventions of both techniques. The tests of within subject effects indicated that the main effect of treatment was not significant but the main effect of time was significant and the interaction of treatment and time was also significant. [Conclusion] The results of this study indicated that both medical stretching techniques were effective on Hamstrings flexibility immediately after the intervention and NMS technique was more effective on improving flexibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.