Trial reportPloS one2024
A comparison of dynamic warm-up and "warm-up" using self-massage tools on subsequent sit-and-reach displacement.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA dynamic warm-up (DWU) comprising exercise involving rhythmic muscle actions results in an acute increase in range of motion; however, recent findings suggest that a passive one using self-massage techniques might elicit a similar effect. This study's purpose was to compare the acute effect of leg cycling DWU on sit-and-reach score to the effect of a preparatory regimen of foam rolling (FR) or percussive massage (PM).
designSingle-blind, randomized, repeated-measures crossover study.
methodsThirty-two asymptomatic, physically-active participants (male; n = 17) aged 20.9 ± 1.5 years performed sit-and-reach tests before, immediately following and 10-, 20- and 30-minutes following eight minutes of each of the "warm-ups." Analyses of variance at each time point across conditions and for the percent change elicited by each intervention were conducted to determine significant differences (p < 0.05).
resultsRepeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference between mean percent difference of sit-and-reach score for FR (8.8 ± 0.5%) compared to DWU and PM (p = 0.046 and 0.048, respectively) while DWU (6.3 ± 0.8%) and PM (6.8 ± 0.5%) did not differ (p = 0.717). There were no differences between scores across interventions at any of the four time points.
conclusionsA bout of FR or PM resulted in an acute increase in a sit-and-reach score during a test performed immediately post and at 10-, 20- and 30-minutes post that was similar in magnitude to that which was present following leg cycling. These passive "warm-ups" are appropriate alternate strategies that can be employed to improve performance on a sit-and-reach test.
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.