ArticleBiology2022
Acute Effects of Static Stretching Combined with Vibration and Nonvibration Foam Rolling on the Cardiovascular Responses and Functional Fitness of Older Women with Prehypertension.
Article in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The acute effect of passively assisted trunk stretching on central arterial stiffness and blood pressure in middle-aged to older adults.European journal of applied physiology · 2024Trial
- Acute effects of foam rolling vs. passive rest following a single bout of complex contrast training.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Effects of Different Types of Stretching on Hypertension: A Systematic Review with Exploratory Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Comparison of acute and prolonged effects of short-term foam rolling and vibration foam rolling on the properties of knee extensors.Biology of sport · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the effects of three warm-up protocols (static stretching (SS), static stretching with vibration foam rolling (SS + VFR), and static stretching with nonvibration foam rolling (SS + FR) on the blood pressure and functional fitness performance in older women with prehypertension. Thirteen older women went through different protocols in separate visits, and their systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, brachial pulse pressure (BPP), functional fitness test (back scratch (BS), chair-sit-and-reach, 30 s arm curl (AC), 30 s chair stand, 2 min step, 8-foot up and go), and single-leg standing balance (SLB) were recorded. The SBP and BPP were significantly higher after SS and SS + VFR than after SS + FR. Both SS + FR and SS + VFR significantly improved the 2 min step, when compared with SS. Additionally, SS + VFR significantly improved the BS and AC performance. However, compared with SS and SS + FR, SS + VFR significantly reduced the SLB performance. Therefore, SS + FR may be a better warm-up protocol for older women in maintaining blood pressure. On the other hand, even though SS + VFR induced superior shoulder flexibility, aerobic endurance, and arm strength, it could impair balance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.