The aim of this study was to determine whether an intensive stretch program increases muscle extensibility or subjects' tolerance to an uncomfortable stretch sensation. Twenty healthy able-bodied individuals with limited hamstring muscle extensibility were recruited. A within-subjects design was used whereby one leg of each subject was randomly allocated to the experimental condition and the other leg was allocated to the control condition. The hamstring muscles of each subject's experimental leg were stretched for 20 minutes each weekday for four weeks. Hamstring muscle extensibility (angle of hip flexion corresponding with a standardised torque) and stretch tolerance (angle of hip flexion corresponding with maximal torque tolerated) were assessed on both legs at the beginning and end of the study. The intervention did not increase the extensibility of the hamstring muscles (mean change in hip flexion was -1 degree, 95% CI -4 to 3 degrees) but did increase subjects' tolerance to an uncomfortable stretch sensation (mean change in hip flexion was 8 degrees, 95% CI 5 to 12 degrees). These results highlight the importance of distinguishing between real and apparent increases in muscle extensibility when assessing the effectiveness of stretch, and indicate that whilst a four-week stretch program increases subjects' tolerance to an uncomfortable stretch sensation it does not increase hamstring muscle extensibility.

Study design: A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken. Objectives: The overall objective was to explore the potential usefulness of clinicians' and patients' impressions of change in motor performance for clinical trials. Specifically, the aim was to compare clinicians' and patients' impressions of change in motor performance with standardized outcome measures in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting: Spinal injury units, Sydney, Australia. Methods: Thirty people undergoing rehabilitation after recent SCI were recruited. They were assessed on two occasions separated by between 1 and 5 months. On both occasions, patients were assessed sitting unsupported (n ¼ 25), transferring (n ¼ 23) and walking (n ¼ 12) using standardized outcome measures. On the second occasion, patients rated their impressions of change in each of the three motor tasks since their initial assessment. A 15-point scale was used. In addition, patients were videoed performing the three motor tasks on the two occasions. Two clinicians with SCI experience independently viewed the pairs of videos and rated their impressions of change using the same 15-point scale. Clinicians' and patients' impressions of change were compared with each other and to the standardized objective measures. Results: Clinicians' and patients' impressions of change were greater than change measured with standardized objective measures for all three motor tasks (Po0.01). In addition, patients' impressions of change were greater than clinicians' impressions of change for transferring, but comparable for unsupported sitting and walking. Conclusion: Clinicians' and patients' impressions of change in motor performance may have potential for evaluating treatment effectiveness in clinical trials.