Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31191092›Full record

Trial reportJournal of sports science & medicine2019

The Training Effects of Foam Rolling on Core Strength Endurance, Balance, Muscle Performance and Range of Motion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Daniel Junker, Thomas Stöggl

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06974409 (The Effects of Foam Rolling on Double-leg Squat Force Distribution), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT06974409 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Foam Rolling on Double-leg Squat Force Distribution

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of RedlandsRan2025 to 2025Enrolled21ConditionsForce Production, Pain Intensity AssessmentArmsfoam roller
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 88 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Effect of Daily OralNutrients · 2021
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel JunkerDepartment of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Salzburg, Austria.
Thomas StögglDepartment of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Salzburg, Austria.
University of Salzburg · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self myofascial therapy via foam roller is a common technique used by many athletes and patients to aid recovery, improve range of motion (ROM) and prevent injury. Further, it is suggested that foam rolling improves core stability. However, research about the training effects of foam rolling on measures of core "strength endurance", muscle performance, balance and flexibility is limited. Forty recreationally active females and males (age: 18-48 yrs) were randomly assigned to a foam roll (FOAM, n = 14), a core stabilization (CORE; n = 12) and a control group (CG, n = 12). FOAM massaged their lower leg muscles (5 exercises) with the foam roll 2 times per week for 8 weeks while CORE was assigned to core stability training including 5 exercises. CG underwent no intervention. Applied tests for outcome measurements were the Bourban trunk muscle strength test (TMS), standing long jump (SLJ), single leg triple hop for distance (SLTH) test, Y-Balance test and stand and reach test. There was an interaction effect (time x treatment) for the dorsal TMS (p = 0.043), demonstrating greater improvements in CORE compared with FOAM and CG with no difference between FOAM and CG. For the stand and reach test a main effect for time (p < 0.001) and time x treatment interaction (p = 0.005) were found, indicating an increase in ROM in FOAM compared with CORE and CG with no difference between the latter. No significant effects were found for balance and muscle performance. An 8-week training with the foam roll is effective in increasing ROM in the stand and reach test without concomitant decreases in core "strength endurance", muscle performance and balance parameters. The core stabilization training was sufficient to improve performance in dorsal TMS test.

Indexed as

Muscle StrengthPhysical EndurancePostural BalanceAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMassageMiddle AgedMuscle, SkeletalRange of Motion, ArticularTorsoYoung AdultCore stabilizationfasciamyofascial therapyY-Balance

Identifiers

PMID31191092
PMCPMC6543984
OpenAlexW2944253957

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.