ArticleFrontiers in physiology2024
Effects of lower back foam rolling on the pressure pain threshold and the range of motion of the lumbar spine in healthy individuals.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percussion Massage Therapy Reduced EMG Activity During Standing Heel Raise.Journal of musculoskeletal & neuronal interactions · 2025Trial
- Comparison of the Effects of Kinesio Taping and Foam Roller Exercises in Individuals with Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to determine the short- and long-term effects of foam rolling (FR) on the pressure pain threshold and the range of motion of the lumbar spine in healthy subjects. Methods: 43 healthy subjects without back problems were randomly assigned to an experimental group (EG) or a control group (CG). The subjects in the EG underwent a 4-week FR program (12 sessions). The subjects in the CG received no intervention. Range of motion was measured using the modified-modified Schober test for flexion and fingertip-to-floor distance for lateral flexion. The pressure pain threshold was measured with a hand-held pressure algometer. The measurements were taken before and after the first FR, after the 4-week program and at the 1-, 3- and 6-month follow-up. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05 and the desired power of the test was 92%. Results: We found an improvement in flexion (p = 0.03) and lateral flexion (p < 0.001) in the EG after the first FR and recorded a significant improvement in all measured variables (flexion, lateral flexion and algometry: p < 0.001) at the end of the entire 4-week program. The effects were noticeable up to 6 months after the end of the program (p ≤ 0.03) and were statistically significantly better than in the CG (p ≤ 0.04). The calculated Cohen's d value was 1.15 for flexion, 1.06 for lateral flexion and 0.98 for algometry, which represents a large effect size. Discussion: FR improves the pressure pain threshold and mobility of the lumbar spine in healthy subjects. The effects are noticeable at least 6 months after the end of an FR program.
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.