Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37560703›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Dynamic and static stretching on hamstring flexibility and stiffness: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peng Cai, Lewen Liu, Hai Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Peng CaiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.
Lewen LiuFaculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Hai LiDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Hamstring injuries are one of the most common types of damage in sports. Insufficient flexibility and high stiffness are important reasons for it. Stretching is often used in warm-up activities before exercises to increase flexibility, among which dynamic stretching (DS) and static stretching (SS) are the most widely used. The effects of these two stretching techniques on the flexibility or stiffness of the hamstring still need to be clarified. Objective: This study aimed to compare the short-term, medium-term, and long-term effects of DS and SS on improving hamstring flexibility and stiffness via a meta-analysis of RCTs. Methods: RCTs were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PEDro from inception to July 28, 2022. The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. The mean difference and 95% confidence interval of the outcome variables before and after stretching were calculated and the extracted data were quantitatively processed using a random or fixed effects model. Results: A total of 27 RCTs and 606 participants were included. In terms of improving the ROM of the hamstring, there was no significant difference in the acute (MD, -0.70, 95% CI, -1.54 to 0.14; Z = 1.63, P > 0.05) and sub-acute effects (MD, 1.71, 95% CI, -2.80 to 6.22; Z = 0.74, P > 0.05) between a single bout of SS and DS, while the acute (MD, -5.13, 95% CI, -7.65 to -2.61; Z = 3.99, P < 0.05) and sub-acute effects (MD, -5.30, 95% CI, -6.33 to -4.27; Z = 10.04, P < 0.05) of multiple bouts of SS was superior to DS; There was no significant difference in the medium-term effect between the two stretching techniques (MD, 3.48, 95% CI, -2.57 to 9.53; Z = 1.13, P > 0.05), but the long-term effect of SS was better than DS (MD, - 10.40, 95% CI, -10.97 to -9.83; Z = 35.57, P < 0.05). Regarding the length of the hamstring, the acute (MD, -0.41, 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.26; Z = 1.20, P > 0.05) and sub-acute effects (MD, -0.73, 95% CI, -1.69 to 0.22; Z = 1.51, P > 0.05) of a single bout of DS and SS were similar. Two studies have compared the effects on hamstring stiffness, with one showing similar effects, and the other showed that DS was superior to SS. One study showed no difference in the magnitude of change in improving passive torque. No studies explored the effect of DS and SS on hamstring myofascial length. Only one study demonstrated no significant difference in hamstring thickness. Conclusions: A single bout of DS and SS have similar short-term effects in improving hamstring ROM and length, while multiple bouts of SS can significantly improve hamstring ROM compared to DS. DS and SS showed similar effects on hamstring myofascial length.

Indexed as

HamstringMechanical propertiesMuscle stretching exercisesRange of motion

Identifiers

PMID37560703
PMCPMC10407730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.