SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
Effects of post-exercise stretching versus no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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.
- Vibration Rolling, Non-Vibration Rolling, and Static Stretching for Delayed- Onset Muscle Soreness on Physiological Changes and Recovery of Athletic Performance in Runners.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Trial
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: Post-exercise stretching is widely employed in athletic and rehabilitation settings to promote recovery and performance. However, its physiological benefits remain controversial due to inconsistent findings across randomized controlled trials. Objective: To evaluate the effects of post-exercise stretching compared to no stretching on lower limb muscle recovery and performance indicators, including muscle soreness, strength, flexibility, performance, and pain threshold. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in eight databases up to 20 July 2025. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and crossover trials comparing post-exercise stretching (static, dynamic, or PNF) with no stretching were included. Data were synthesized using random-effects models, and effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results: Fifteen studies (n = 465 participants) were included. Post-exercise stretching showed and statistically non-significant effects on muscle soreness (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.32, 0.19], p = 0.63), strength (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: [-0.14, 0.68], p = 0.19), performance (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.46], p = 0.22), flexibility (SMD = -0.06, 95% CI: [-0.31, 0.20], p = 0.67), and pain threshold (SMD = -0.02, 95% CI: [-0.41, 0.37], p = 0.93). Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test indicated robust results and no publication bias. Conclusion: Post-exercise stretching, when used as a standalone recovery intervention, does not significantly improve soreness, strength, performance, flexibility, or pain threshold. While physiologically safe and practical, its effectiveness may be limited, warranting integration with multimodal recovery strategies in future applications. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD420251113484.
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.