Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38943165›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2024

Comparison of resistance training vs static stretching on flexibility and maximal strength in healthy physically active adults, a randomized controlled trial.

Morten Rosenfeldt, Nicolay Stien, David G Behm, Atle Hole Saeterbakken, Vidar Andersen

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07061041 (Comparison of the Effects of Static Stretching and Full Range of Motion Strength Training on Posterior Band Flexibility), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

NCT07061041 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of the Effects of Static Stretching and Full Range of Motion Strength Training on Posterior Band Flexibility

TypeinterventionalSponsorJózef Piłsudski University of Physical EducationRan2025 to 2025Enrolled54ConditionsFlexibility, Strength Training Effects, Static StretchingArmsStrength training, Streching group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Morten RosenfeldtFaculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, PB 133, Sogndal, 6851, Norway.
Nicolay StienFaculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, PB 133, Sogndal, 6851, Norway.
David G BehmSchool of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.
Atle Hole SaeterbakkenFaculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, PB 133, Sogndal, 6851, Norway.
Vidar AndersenFaculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, PB 133, Sogndal, 6851, Norway. Vidar.andersen@hvl.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the present study was to compare the effects of resistance training through full range of motion and static stretching (SS) of the hip and lower back extensors on flexibility and strength in healthy, physically active, adults.

methodsEighteen participants (age: 24.2 ± 3.0 years, body mass: 71.3 ± 8.9 kg, height: 172.8 ± 7.5 cm) were randomly assigned to either a Resistance Training (RT) (n = 6), SS (n = 6), or control (CON) group (n = 6). The sit & reach (S&R) flexibility test and maximum isometric straight legged deadlift (ISLDL) at 95% and 50% range of motion (ROM) were tested pre- and post-intervention with significance set at p < 0.05. Both groups conducted four to eight sets per session. Within each set, the RT group performed eight repetitions each lasting four seconds, while the SS group stretched continuously for 32 s. The rest periods between each set were 60-90 s. Consequently training volume and rest times were matched between the groups.

resultsThe RT and SS groups achieved significant, large magnitude improvements in the S&R test compared to the CON group (p < 0.01 g = 2.53 and p = 0.01, g = 2.44), but no differences were observed between the RT and SS groups (p = 1.00). Furthermore, the RT group demonstrated a larger improvement in 50% and 95% ROM ISLDL compared to SS (p < 0.01, g = 2.69-3.36) and CON (p < 0.01, g = 2.44-2.57).

conclusionResistance training through a full ROM was equally effective as SS for improving S&R flexibility, but improved hip- and lower back extensor strength more than SS and the CON. The authors recommend using large ROM resistance training to improve hip and lower back extensor flexibility and muscle strength.

trial registrationISRCTN88839251, registered 24. April 2024, Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

DeadliftsIsometricLower backRange of motionSit and reachStrength training

Identifiers

PMID38943165
PMCPMC11212372

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.