ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
A survey of sports and rehabilitation professionals on foam rolling applications, contraindications, and adverse events - does the science reach professionals' perceptions?
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of foam rolling and the knowledge-to-action gap: are practitioners' beliefs supported by the evidence? An international survey study.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foam Rolling (FR) is a type of self-massage used in sports and rehabilitation. The evidence on its effects has significantly increased in recent years; however, the extent to which novel research findings on FR have been implemented in practice remains unknown. Thus, we aimed to survey and document responses on the application, contraindications, and adverse events of FR among German-speaking sports and rehabilitation professionals. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted, which included 21 items relating to four key topics: (i) participant characteristics, (ii) FR application parameters, (iii) contraindications, and (iv) adverse events. Overall, 776 participants consented to participate. 68.6% of respondents indicated using FR in their practice. Average duration of FR was recommended at 3.2 min per body region. Smooth rollers were primarily used (82.9%). Pursued goals and observed effects were largely congruent and subjective methods were mainly used to assess effects. 90.9% of FR-users considered contraindications in practice, with pain being the most commonly noted factor. Headaches and tissue inflammation were the most reported side effects. While 32.4% believed that no adverse events can be expected, most respondents found however adverse events such as tissue inflammation plausible. An assumed lack of scientific evidence for positive effects was the most frequently cited reason for non-use of FR. Although our results demonstrate congruency between research findings and practical application across various parameters, researchers and practitioners should collaborate closely to disseminate knowledge, establish guidelines, and expand the FR evidence base, particularly regarding adverse events.
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.