Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36141907›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Effects of Foam Rolling Training on Performance Parameters: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis including Controlled and Randomized Controlled Trials.

Andreas Konrad, Masatoshi Nakamura, David George Behm

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Alternative Flexibility Training.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Andreas KonradInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, 8010 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5588-1824
Masatoshi NakamuraFaculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Nishi Kyushu University, 4490-9 Ozaki, Kanzaki 842-8585, Saga, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8184-1121
David George BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL A1C 5S7, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9406-6056

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF J 4484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Foam rolling (FR) is a new and popular technique for increasing range of motion. While there are a few studies that demonstrate increased performance measures after an acute bout of FR, the overall evidence indicates trivial performance benefits. As there have been no meta-analyses on the effects of chronic FR on performance, the objective of this systematic meta-analytical review was to quantify the effects of FR training on performance. We searched PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science for FR training studies with a duration greater than two weeks, and found eight relevant studies. We used a random effect meta-analysis that employed a mixed-effect model to identify subgroup analyses. GRADE analysis was used to gauge the quality of the evidence obtained from this meta-analysis. Egger's regression intercept test (intercept 1.79;

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicRange of Motion, Articularjumpmyofascial techniqueroller-massagestrengthstretch tolerance

Identifiers

PMID36141907
PMCPMC9517147

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.