Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35298696›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of applied physiology2022

A comparison of a single bout of stretching or foam rolling on range of motion in healthy adults.

Andreas Konrad, Masatoshi Nakamura, Florian K Paternoster, Markus Tilp, David G Behm

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of applied physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Andreas KonradInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, Graz, Austria. andreas.konrad@uni-graz.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5588-1824
Masatoshi NakamuraInstitute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8184-1121
Florian K PaternosterAssociate Professorship of Biomechanics in Sports, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8416-9820
Markus TilpInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, Graz, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6644-2712
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, A1C 5S7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9406-6056

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF J 4484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStretching and foam rolling are common warm-up exercises and can acutely increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint. However, possible differences in the magnitude of change on ROM between these two interventions on the immediate and prolonged effects (e.g., 10 min after the intervention) are not yet well understood. Thus, the purpose of this review was to compare the immediate and prolonged effects of a single bout of foam rolling with a single bout of stretching on ROM in healthy participants.

methodsIn total, 20 studies with overall 38 effect sizes were found to be eligible for a meta-analysis. For the main analysis, subgroup analysis, we applied a random-effect meta-analysis, mixed-effect model, respectively. The subgroup analyses included age groups, sex, and activity levels of the participants, as well as the tested muscles, the duration of the application, and the study design.

resultsMeta-analyses revealed no significant differences between a single stretching and foam rolling exercise immediately after the interventions (ES = 0.079; P = 0.39) nor a difference 10 min (ES =  - 0.051; P = 0.65), 15 min (ES =  - 0.011; P = 0.93), and 20 min (ES =  - 0.161; P = 0.275) post-intervention. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed no other significant differences between the acute effects of stretching and foam rolling (P > 0.05).

conclusionIf the goal is to increase the ROM acutely, both interventions can be considered as equally effective. Likely, similar mechanisms are responsible for the acute and prolonged ROM increases such as increased stretch tolerance or increased soft-tissue compliance.

Indexed as

Muscle, SkeletalWarm-Up ExerciseAdultHumansRange of Motion, ArticularExtensibilityFlexibilityFoam rollerHealthy adultsSelf-myofascial release

Identifiers

PMID35298696
PMCPMC9197890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.