Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32728819›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of applied physiology2020

Immediate effects of neurodynamic nerve gliding versus static stretching on hamstring neuromechanical properties.

Danguole Satkunskiene, Ra'ad M Khair, Pornpimol Muanjai, Mantas Mickevicius, Sigitas Kamandulis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of applied physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ultrasound-Guided Fascial Hydrorelease for Persistent Pain After Hamstring Injury.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Danguole SatkunskieneInstitute of Sports Science and Innovation, Lithuanian Sports University, Sporto g. 6, 44221, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Ra'ad M KhairInstitute of Sports Science and Innovation, Lithuanian Sports University, Sporto g. 6, 44221, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Pornpimol MuanjaiFaculty of Allied Health Sciences, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Mantas MickeviciusInstitute of Sports Science and Innovation, Lithuanian Sports University, Sporto g. 6, 44221, Kaunas, Lithuania. mantas.mickevicius@lsu.lt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2557-5471
Sigitas KamandulisInstitute of Sports Science and Innovation, Lithuanian Sports University, Sporto g. 6, 44221, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Lithuanian Sports University · LTBurapha University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe investigated the immediate effects of neurodynamic nerve gliding (ND) on hamstring flexibility, viscoelasticity, and mechanosensitivity, compared with traditional static stretching (ST).

methodsTwenty-two physically active men aged 21.9 ± 1.9 years were divided randomly into two equal intervention groups using ST or ND. An isokinetic dynamometer was used to measure the active knee joint position sense, perform passive knee extension, record the passive extension range of motion (ROM) and the passive-resistive torque of hamstrings. Stiffness was determined from the slope of the passive torque-angle relationship. A stress relaxation test (SRT) was performed to analyze the viscoelastic behavior of the hamstrings. The passive straight leg raise (SLR) test was used to evaluate hamstring flexibility.

resultsA significant interaction was observed for ROM and passive ultimate stiffness, reflected by an increase in these indicators after ND but not after SD. SLR increased significantly in both groups. After ST, a significantly faster initial stress relaxation was observed over the first 4 s. than after ND. There was no significant change in the active knee joint position sense.

conclusionsND provided a slightly greater increase in hamstring extensibility and passive stiffness, possibly by decreasing nerve tension and increasing strain in connective tissues than ST. The ST mostly affected the viscoelastic behavior of the hamstrings, but neither intervention had a significant impact on proprioception.

Indexed as

AdultElectromyographyHamstring MusclesHumansKnee JointLegProprioceptionRange of Motion, ArticularTorqueYoung AdultFlexibilityMechanosensitivityPassive stiffnessViscoelasticity

Identifiers

PMID32728819
OpenAlexW3045873515

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.