ArticlePloS one2024
The knowledge of movement experts about stretching effects: Does the science reach practice?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of post-exercise stretching versus no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Revisiting the stretch-induced force deficit: A systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis of acute effects.Journal of sport and health science · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of Stretching or Strengthening Exercise on Spinal and Lumbopelvic Posture: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of foam rolling and the knowledge-to-action gap: are practitioners' beliefs supported by the evidence? An international survey study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Knowledge of gym goers on myths and truths in resistance training.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A survey of sports and rehabilitation professionals on foam rolling applications, contraindications, and adverse events - does the science reach professionals' perceptions?Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStretching is performed with numerous purposes in multiple settings such as prevention, rehabilitation, fitness training and sports. Its patterns of use substantially depend on the education and beliefs of health care and exercise professionals as they represent the multiplicators recommending and prescribing interventions to clients, patients and athletes. This study investigated movement experts' knowledge about the scientific evidence on stretching effects.
designSurvey study.
participantsA total of 117 exercise and health professionals (physiotherapists, sports scientists, coaches) attending a training convention in Austria (male: n = 44, female: n = 73, 36±11 years) completed a digital survey. With its 22 items, the questionnaire addressed the movement experts' awareness of the evidence on stretching effects regarding a variety of related topics selected based on the findings of topical systematic reviews.
resultsThe majority of the individuals (57-88%) assumed positive effects of stretching on recovery, prevention of muscle injury, range of motion, muscular imbalance and artery elasticity. No or adverse effects were mostly claimed on bone injury prevention, maximal/explosive strength, and delayed-onset muscle soreness. In only 10 of 22 items, participants' classifications were in accord with the scientific evidence.
conclusionsThe awareness of research findings on stretching effects among exercise and health professionals is alarmingly low. Future studies may hence be geared to improve implementation and science communication.
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.