Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2024 review

Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

19Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
4Institutions déclarées
2Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : ca, at. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Long-term static stretching as well as foam rolling training can increase a joint's range of motion (ROM). However, to date, it is not clear which method is the most effective for increasing ROM. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effects of static stretching and foam rolling training on ROM. METHODS: The literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to find the eligible studies. Eighty-five studies (72 on static stretching; and 13 on foam rolling) were found to be eligible with 204 effect sizes (ESs). For the main analyses, a random-effect meta-analysis was applied. To assess the difference between static stretching and foam rolling, subgroup analyses with a mixed-effect model were applied. Moderating variables were sex, total intervention duration, and weeks of intervention. RESULTS: Static stretch (ES = - 1.006; p < 0.001), as well as foam rolling training (ES = - 0.729; p = 0.001), can increase joint ROM with a moderate magnitude compared with a control condition. However, we did not detect a significant difference between the two conditions in the subgroup analysis (p = 0.228). When the intervention duration was ≤ 4 weeks, however, a significant change in ROM was shown following static stretching (ES = - 1.436; p < 0.001), but not following foam rolling (ES = - 0.229; p = 0.248). Thus, a subgroup analysis indicated a significant favorable effect with static stretching for increasing ROM compared with foam rolling (p < 0.001) over a shorter term (≤ 4 weeks). Other moderator analyses showed no significant difference between static stretch and foam rolling training on ROM. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results, both static stretching and foam rolling training can be similarly recommended to increase joint ROM, unless the training is scheduled for ≤ 4 weeks, in which case static stretching demonstrates a significant advantage. More studies are needed with a high-volume foam rolling training approach as well as foam rolling training in exclusively female participants.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Static Stretch Training versus Foam Rolling Training Effects on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Date Crossref
17/05/2024
Éditeur
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Sports injuries and preventionLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesTendon Structure and Treatment

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.