Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31628662›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Acute Effects of Foam Rolling on Range of Motion in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review with Multilevel Meta-analysis.

Jan Wilke, Anna-Lena Müller, Florian Giesche, Gerard Power, Hamid Ahmedi, David G Behm

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The effects of chronic stretch training on musculoskeletal pain.European journal of applied physiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jan WilkeDepartment of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. wilke@sport.uni-frankfurt.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9147-2369
Anna-Lena MüllerDepartment of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Florian GiescheDepartment of Preventive and Sports Medicine, Institute of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Gerard PowerSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NF, Canada.
Hamid AhmediSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NF, Canada.
David G BehmDepartment of Sports Medicine, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEMemorial University of Newfoundland · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFoam rolling (FR) has been demonstrated to acutely enhance joint range of motion (ROM). However, data syntheses pooling the effect sizes across studies are scarce. It is, furthermore, unknown which moderators affect the treatment outcome.

objectiveTo quantify the immediate effects of FR on ROM in healthy adults.

methodsA multilevel meta-analysis with a robust random effects meta-regression model was used to pool the standardized mean differences (SMD) between FR and no-exercise (NEX) as well as FR and stretching. The influence of the possible effect modifiers treatment duration, speed, targeted muscle, testing mode (active/passive ROM), sex, BMI, and study design was examined in a moderator analysis.

resultsTwenty-six trials with high methodological quality (PEDro scale) were identified. Compared to NEX, FR had a large positive effect on ROM (SMD: 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.01, p = 0.0002), but was not superior to stretching (SMD: - 0.02, 95% CI - 0.73 to 0.69, p = 0.95). Although the few individual study findings suggest that FR with vibration may be more effective than NEX or FR without vibration, the pooled results did not reveal significant differences (SMD: 6.75, 95% CI - 76.4 to 89.9, p = 0.49 and SMD: 0.66, 95% CI - 1.5 to 2.8, p = 0.32). According to the moderator analysis, most potential effect modifiers (e.g., BMI, speed or duration) do not have a significant impact (p > 0.05) but FR may be less effective in men (p < 0.05).

conclusionFR represents an effective method to induce acute improvements in joint ROM. The impact of moderators should be further elucidated in future research.

Indexed as

Range of Motion, ArticularHealthy VolunteersHumansMuscle Stretching ExercisesMuscle TonusTrigger Points

Identifiers

PMID31628662
OpenAlexW2980722085

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.