Trial reportScientific reports2026
Acute effects of foam rolling versus passive rest following a single bout of explosive squat jump exercise.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Acute effects of foam rolling on jump performance and neuromuscular responses following resistance exercise.Frontiers in physiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A single session of explosive resistance exercise can induce acute neuromuscular fatigue, highlighting the need for effective recovery strategies. Foam rolling (FR) is commonly used to facilitate neuromuscular and functional restoration. This study examined whether FR, compared with passive recovery (PR), differentially affects post-exercise balance, jump performance, and lower-limb neuromuscular excitation assessed via surface electromyography. Twenty-one physically active men (age 21.8 ± 1.6 years; height 180.7 ± 8.0 cm; weight 75.1 ± 10.8 kg) completed both FR and PR in a randomized crossover design. Assessments were conducted prior to exercise (pre-test), immediately post-exercise (mid-test), and following the recovery interventions (post-test). All participants performed the squat jump protocol (5 sets × 6 reps at 30% 1RM and 6-8 reps at body weight), followed by performance tests (dynamic balance, static balance, horizontal and vertical jumping) and muscle activity assessment. For physical tests, significant intervention × time interactions were observed for posteromedial and composite scores of dynamic balance, static balance, and horizontal jumping (p = 0.002-0.024; [Formula: see text] = 0.171-0.262), indicating greater improvements following FR compared with PR, whereas no significant interactions were observed for anterior and posterolateral dynamic balance or vertical jumping. Muscle excitation showed significant main effects of time across all measures (p ≤ 0.001-0.032; [Formula: see text] = 0.158-0.598), with intervention × time interactions limited to a subset of muscles (p = 0.011-0.035; [Formula: see text]= 0.154-0.201). FR may help preserve static and dynamic balance, as well as horizontal jump performance, following a single bout of explosive resistance exercise; however, its effects on vertical jump and muscle excitation appear limited. Future research should incorporate broader neuromuscular assessments and varied FR protocols across diverse populations to clarify underlying mechanisms and optimize recovery.
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.