Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38760635›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Andreas Konrad, Shahab Alizadeh, Saman Hadjizadeh Anvar, Josef Fischer, Josefina Manieu, David G Behm

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 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. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Andreas KonradInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, Mozartgasse 14, 8010, Graz, Austria. andreas.konrad@uni-graz.at.ORCID 0000-0002-5588-1824
Shahab AlizadehHuman Performance Lab, Department of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Saman Hadjizadeh AnvarSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.
Josef FischerInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, Mozartgasse 14, 8010, Graz, Austria.
Josefina ManieuInstitute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health, Graz University, Mozartgasse 14, 8010, Graz, Austria.
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9406-6056

Funding

Austrian Science Fund J 4484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-term static stretching as well as foam rolling training can increase a joint's range of motion (ROM). However, to date, it is not clear which method is the most effective for increasing ROM.

objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of static stretching and foam rolling training on ROM.

methodsThe literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the eligible studies. Eighty-five studies (72 on static stretching; and 13 on foam rolling) were found to be eligible with 204 effect sizes (ESs). For the main analyses, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied. To assess the difference between static stretching and foam rolling, subgroup analyses with a mixed-effect model were applied. Moderating variables were sex, total intervention duration, and weeks of intervention.

resultsStatic stretch (ES =  - 1.006; p < 0.001), as well as foam rolling training (ES =  - 0.729; p = 0.001), can increase joint ROM with a moderate magnitude compared with a control condition. However, we did not detect a significant difference between the two conditions in the subgroup analysis (p = 0.228). When the intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks, however, a significant change in ROM was shown following static stretching (ES =  - 1.436; p < 0.001), but not following foam rolling (ES =  - 0.229; p = 0.248). Thus, a subgroup analysis indicated a significant favorable effect with static stretching for increasing ROM compared with foam rolling (p < 0.001) over a shorter term (≤ 4 weeks). Other moderator analyses showed no significant difference between static stretch and foam rolling training on ROM.

conclusionsAccording to the results, both static stretching and foam rolling training can be similarly recommended to increase joint ROM, unless the training is scheduled for ≤ 4 weeks, in which case static stretching demonstrates a significant advantage. More studies are needed with a high-volume foam rolling training approach as well as foam rolling training in exclusively female participants.

Indexed as

Muscle Stretching ExercisesRange of Motion, ArticularHumans

Identifiers

PMID38760635
PMCPMC11393112

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.