ArticleBiology of sport2024
Comparison of the effects of different foam rolling durations on knee extensors function.
Article in Biology of sport, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of a 3-week foam rolling warm-up intervention on ankle dorsiflexion measurements and jumping performance in young rhythmic gymnasts.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Effects of foam rolling and static stretching on ankle dorsiflexion and jumping ability: a randomized controlled trial.Biology of sport · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a Foam Roller Warm-Up in Professional Basketball Players: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foam rolling (FR) intervention has recently attracted attention in sports and rehabilitation settings. However, the effects of FR using different rolling durations have not been fully clarified. Thus, this study focused on FR durations and examined the acute and prolonged (i.e., 20-min; 40-min, 60-min) effects of different FR intervention durations on maximal voluntary concentric contractions (MVC-CON), knee flexion range of motion (ROM), pain pressure threshold (PPT), and tissue hardness. The participants were 10 male university students (22.5 ± 1.0 years), and the target muscles were the dominant leg knee extensors. Three sets of 60-seconds FR interventions were performed in the randomized crossover trials in each condition. The three intervention conditions were fast (1 rolling/2 s, 30-repetition × 3 sets, 90 repetitions), medium (1 rolling/6 s, 10-repetition × 3 sets, 30 repetitions), and slow speed (1 rolling/12 s, 5-repetition × 3 sets, 15 repetitions). Before as well as immediately, 20-min, 40-min, and 60-min after the interventions, MVC-CON, ROM PPT, and tissue hardness were measured. The results showed no interaction effect in the acute effect but a main effect of time for all variables (p < 0.05). Also, no interaction was observed in prolonged effect, but main effects of time were observed in knee flexion ROM, PPT, and tissue hardness (p < 0.01) but not for MVC-CON. Post-hoc tests showed significant PPT (p < 0.05) and knee flexion ROM (p < 0.01) increases up to 20- and 60-minutes respectively after all interventions. Tissue hardness was significantly (p < 0.01) decreased up to 60-minutes after all interventions. This study showed that the FR intervention changed ROM, PPT, tissue hardness, and MVC-CON regardless of rolling duration and that the effects persisted up to 20-60 minutes.
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.