Untitled

doi:10.7752/jpes.2018.02092

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, 154 trials (51.3%) applied a single stretching modality (e.g., ballistic stretching [205], PNF [142]), 133 trials (44.3%) compared two or more stretching modalities (e.g., dynamic stretching versus static active stretching [61]), and 11 trials (3.7%) implemented a single combination of stretching modalities (e.g., dynamic stretching + static active stretching within the same intervention group [314]). Twelve trials (4.0%) had at least one group performing some stretching modality with superimposed vibration (e.g., static active stretching + vibration [235]) (k = 10, 3.3%), heat (k = 2, 0.6% [106,176]), or ice (k = 1, 0.3% [106]); considering the eligibility criteria, these were classified as being comparators.…”

Section: Stretching Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-two trials (7.3%) compared different doses within a given stretching modality (e.g., 1 versus 2 versus 3 sets of ballistic stretching [205]; 6 versus 12 versus 18 repetitions of dynamic stretching [121]; and 35 s repetitions versus 65 s repetitions of PNF contract-relax [142]). There were specific comparisons within dynamic stretching: three trials (1.0%) compared stationary dynamic stretching versus dynamic stretching while moving [97,167,168], and one trial (0.3%) compared dynamic stretching performed at selfpaced versus self-paced with additional forces versus maximal speed [343].…”

Section: Stretching Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4c). In nine trials (3.0%) [81,82,142,151,180,224,340,359,360], different durations were compared (e.g., 5 s for the five-set group versus 30 s for the single-set group [359,360] or 35 s for the low-volume group versus 65 s for the highvolume group [142]). This was obviously extended to the trials comparing continuous versus intermittent stretching [103,114,147,149].…”

Section: Number Of Repetitions or Time Per Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reporting of intensity for dynamic stretching commonly ranged from "through active ROM" (e.g., [97]) to maximum ROM (e.g., [122]), but other descriptions were provided as well (e.g., with slight pain [281], to point of discomfort [247], or from low to high intensity [255]). Static active and passive stretching, as well as PNF, were commonly reported as being performed to certain degrees of discomfort (e.g., to point of mild discomfort [75, 167,182], to point of discomfort [61, 142,216]), feeling a stretch (e.g., [154,222,285]), or to maximum ROM (e.g., [76,90,201]). Often, the request to achieve maximum ROM in static active and passive stretching was followed by qualifiers such as "while avoiding pain" (e.g., [141,327,364]).…”

Section: Stretching Velocity and Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Afonso,

Andrade,

Rocha-Rodrigues

et al. 2024

Sports Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Stretching has garnered significant attention in sports sciences, resulting in numerous studies. However, there is no comprehensive overview on investigation of stretching in healthy athletes. Objectives To perform a systematic scoping review with an evidence gap map of stretching studies in healthy athletes, identify current gaps in the literature, and provide stakeholders with priorities for future research. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines were followed. We included studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions. Six databases were searched (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) until 1 January 2023. The relevant data were narratively synthesized; quantitative data summaries were provided for key data items. An evidence gap map was developed to offer an overview of the existing research and relevant gaps. Results Of ~ 220,000 screened records, we included 300 trials involving 7080 athletes [mostly males (~ 65% versus ~ 20% female, and ~ 15% unreported) under 36 years of age; tiers 2 and 3 of the Participant Classification Framework] across 43 sports. Sports requiring extreme range of motion (e.g., gymnastics) were underrepresented. Most trials assessed the acute effects of stretching, with chronic effects being scrutinized in less than 20% of trials. Chronic interventions averaged 7.4 ± 5.1 weeks and never exceeded 6 months. Most trials (~ 85%) implemented stretching within the warm-up, with other application timings (e.g., post-exercise) being under-researched. Most trials examined static active stretching (62.3%), followed by dynamic stretching (38.3%) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching (12.0%), with scarce research on alternative methods (e.g., ballistic stretching). Comparators were mostly limited to passive controls, with ~ 25% of trials including active controls (e.g., strength training). The lower limbs were primarily targeted by interventions (~ 75%). Reporting of dose was heterogeneous in style (e.g., 10 repetitions versus 10 s for dynamic stretching) and completeness of information (i.e., with disparities in the comprehensiveness of the provided information). Most trials (~ 90%) reported performance-related outcomes (mainly strength/power and range of motion); sport-specific outcomes were collected in less than 15% of trials. Biomechanical, physiological, and neural/psychological outcomes were assessed sparsely and heterogeneously; only five trials investigated injury-related outcomes. Conclusions There is room for improvement, with many areas of research on stretching being underexplored and others currently too heterogeneous for reliable comparisons between studies. There is limited representation of elite-level athletes (~ 5% tier 4 and no tier 5) and underpowered sample sizes (≤ 20 participants). Research was biased toward adult male athletes of sports not requiring extreme ranges of motion, and mostly assessed the acute effects of static active stretching and dynamic stretching during the warm-up. Dose–response relationships remain largely underexplored. Outcomes were mostly limited to general performance testing. Injury prevention and other effects of stretching remain poorly investigated. These relevant research gaps should be prioritized by funding policies. Registration OSF project (https://osf.io/6auyj/) and registration (https://osf.io/gu8ya).

show abstract