Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30276016›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2018

FOUR WEEKS OF ROLLER MASSAGE TRAINING DID NOT IMPACT RANGE OF MOTION, PAIN PRESSURE THRESHOLD, VOLUNTARY CONTRACTILE PROPERTIES OR JUMP PERFORMANCE.

Daniel D Hodgson, Camila D Lima, Jonathan L Low, David G Behm

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 1: Kinesio Tape, Sports Massage Therapy, and Acupuncture.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
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

4 authors.

Daniel D HodgsonSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.
Camila D LimaSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.
Jonathan L LowSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRoller massagers are popular devices that are used to improve range of motion (ROM), enhance recovery from muscle soreness, and reduce pain under acute conditions. However, the effects of roller massage training and training frequency are unknown. PURPOSE: The objective was to compare two different roller massage training frequencies on muscle performance. STUDY

designRandomized controlled intervention study.

methodsTwenty-three recreationally active university students were randomly allocated to three groups: control (n=8;), rolling three (3/W; n=8;) and six (6/W; n=7) times per week for four weeks. The roller massage training consisted of unilateral, dominant limb, quadriceps and hamstrings rolling (4 sets x 30 seconds). Both legs of participants were tested pre- and post-training for active and passive hamstrings and quadriceps range of motion (ROM), electromyography (EMG) activity during a lunge movement, unilateral countermovement jumps (CMJ), as well as quadriceps and hamstrings maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) forces and electromechanical delay. Finally, they were tested for pain pressure threshold at middle and distal segments of their quadriceps and hamstrings.

resultsThere were no significant training interactions for any measure with the exception that 3/W group exhibited 6.2% (p=0.03; Effect Size: 0.31) higher CMJ height from pre- (38.6 ± 7.1 cm) to post-testing (40.9 ± 8.1 cm) for the non-dominant limb.

conclusionsWhereas the literature has demonstrated acute responses to roller massage, the results of the present study demonstrate no consistent significant training-induced changes. The absence of change may highlight a lack of muscle and myofascial morphological or semi-permanent neurophysiological changes with rolling. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: 2c.

Indexed as

flexibilityfoam rollingmassageself-myofascial releasestrength

Identifiers

PMID30276016
PMCPMC6159503

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.