ArticleJournal of exercise science and fitness2025
Voluntary isometric contractions at maximal shortening as a new technique to achieve neuromuscular re-education in healthy subjects.
Article in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods: Sixty healthy, recreationally active participants (mean age: 46.4 ± 5.5), were randomly assigned to three groups (VICAMS, ballistic stretching, and control) who were trained for eight weeks. To assess chronic effects, active range of motion, maximal isometric strength, and countermovement jump height were determined before and after the intervention. Results: Main effects of time and time∗group interactions were found for all variables (p < 0.001). Between-group differences were observed in the VICAMS group after the intervention, with significantly higher flexibility and strength values compared to the other groups. Intra-group differences were observed in the VICAMS and ballistic groups, as the values for all variables increased from baseline. In the VICAMS group, increases were observed in both flexibility (19.15 %) and strength (47.63 %). Increases in flexibility (2.59 %) and strength (1.84 %) were also observed in the ballistic group. For jumping, intra-group differences showed that both the VICAMS (16.56 %) and ballistic (4.34 %) groups had improved values compared to baseline values. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that VICAMS is an effective, simple, and inexpensive alternative to conventional training methods for improving flexibility and strength in rehabilitation.
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.