(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Results: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.

Background: Range of motion (ROM) is an important feature of sports performance and health. Stretching is usually prescribed to improve promote ROM gains, but evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) also improves ROM. However, it is unclear if its efficacy is comparable to stretching. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM. Protocol: INPLASY: 10.37766/inplasy2020.9.0098. Data sources: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in early October 2020, followed by search within reference lists and consultation of four experts. No constraints on language or year. Eligibility criteria (PICOS): (P) humans of any sex, age, health or training status; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching interventions (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. Data extraction and synthesis: Independently conducted by multiple authors. Quality of evidence assessed using GRADE; risk-of-bias assessed with RoB 2. Results: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = -022; 95% CI = -055 to 012; p = 0206). Sub-group analyses based on RoB, active vs. passive ROM, and specific movement-per-joint analyses for hip flexion and knee extension showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. Conclusion: ST and stretching were not different in improving ROM, regardless of the diversity of protocols and populations. Barring specific contra-indications, people who do not respond well or do not adhere to stretching protocols can change to ST programs, and vice-versa.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract