Trial reportPloS one2026
Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examined the acute effects of different foam rolling (FR) durations on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players.
methodsIn this parallel-group randomized trial, 102 U16-U18 players were allocated equally to FR-A (30 seconds per region), FR-B (60 seconds per region), or passive rest. Five valid trials were recorded before and after the intervention. The lowest value was the primary best-trial score; the mean and median were sensitivity measures. Baseline-adjusted post-test differences were assessed using ANCOVA. Because the standard best-trial ANCOVA violated slope-homogeneity and linearity assumptions, an extended nonlinear baseline-interaction model was evaluated using 5,000 bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap replicates. Mixed-design ANOVAs examined pre-to-post trajectories.
resultsFR-A had lower adjusted post-test reaction time than FR-B under best-trial (difference = -21.86 ms, 95% CI: -30.31 to -13.41; adjusted p < .01), mean-based (-12.36 ms, adjusted p < .01), and median-based scoring (-10.94 ms, adjusted p = .03). The FR-A-control difference was significant in the standard best-trial ANCOVA (-15.44 ms, 95% CI: -24.12 to -6.76; adjusted p < .01) and extended bootstrap comparison (-14.79 ms, adjusted p < .01), but not in mean-based (adjusted p = .33) or median-based analyses (adjusted p = .39). Extended bootstrap estimates were also higher in FR-B than in the control group (9.52 ms, adjusted p = .01). Because this model contained baseline interactions, these contrasts represented average rather than constant differences across baseline values. The time × group interaction was significant only for best-trial scoring (p < .01).
conclusionFR-A had consistently lower adjusted reaction time than FR-B across all scoring methods. However, the FR-A-control comparison depended on baseline reaction time and scoring method. Thus, the findings do not establish a scoring-independent benefit of the 30-second protocol over passive rest or support a firm practical recommendation.
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.