SynthesisSports medicine - open2026
The Impact of a Single Bout of Antagonist Stretching on Agonist Muscle Performance and Range of Motion: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStretching is widely used to increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint and has been shown to impact both stretched and non-stretched limbs.
objectiveGiven conflicting findings regarding the acute effects of antagonist muscle stretching on agonist performance (e.g., strength, power) and ROM, this meta-analysis aims to clarify these issues and identify moderating factors.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 and ethical publishing guidance, the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251014186). MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to April 2025. Eligibility followed PICOS criteria: healthy participants; unloaded static, dynamic or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching of an antagonist; passive control; agonist performance or ROM outcomes; randomised or controlled pre-post trials. Risk of bias was assessed with the PEDro scale. Where > 2 studies were available, pooled effects were calculated with a robust-variance-estimation random-effects model (robumeta R package); otherwise, results were described qualitatively. Effect sizes (SMD) were interpreted as trivial (< 0.2), small (0.2-0.49), moderate (0.5-0.79) or large (≥ 0.8). Moderator, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses examined stretch duration and stretching technique. Certainty of evidence was graded with GRADE.
resultsNine eligible trials involving 302 healthy participants met the criteria. Antagonist stretching produced a trivial, non-significant improvement in agonist performance (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI - 0.10-0.56, p = 0.14; low certainty). Moderator analyses showed no influence of stretch duration per bout (< 120 s vs ≥ 120 s) or stretching type (static, dynamic, PNF). Qualitative synthesis for ROM parameters suggested weak evidence for a small agonist ROM increase. Funnel-plot inspection revealed no clear publication-bias pattern; Egger's test was not applied (< 10 studies). Findings are constrained by small sample sizes, moderate heterogeneity and predominantly fair-quality trials, yielding low overall certainty.
conclusionCurrent evidence indicates no clinically meaningful acute effect of antagonist stretching on agonist performance or ROM, irrespective of stretch duration or technique. Larger, high-quality trials are required to establish whether antagonist stretching offers practical benefits.
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.