Untitled

doi:10.7752/jpes.2014.04069

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Trials assessing chronic effects lasted between 1 and 21 weeks [90,285,312,351], with an average of 7.4 ± 5.1 and a median of 6.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 4.0-10.5] weeks. Eleven trials, from 12 studies, (3.7%) failed to reach a minimum length of 4 weeks [78, 90,154,161,211,237,285,299,300,304,329,351] that would suffice to generate adaptations to stretching interventions in humans [368]. Trials lasting up to 8 weeks represented 13.0% of the publications (k = 39), and only six trials, from 10 studies, (2.0%) lasted ≥ 16 weeks [99,188,259,265,[305][306][307][308][309]312].…”

Section: Length Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The total number of stretching sessions in trials assessing chronic effects ranged from 3 to 150 [90,154,237,312,351], with an average of 24.6 ± 24.1, a median of 19 (IQR 10.3-31.5), and was unreported and impossible to assess in three trials [105,211,304].…”

Section: Number Of Weekly Sessions and Total Number Of Sessions In Ch...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was obviously extended to the trials comparing continuous versus intermittent stretching [103,114,147,149]. In some experiments, the duration could vary [237,252,259,279,280,336,367] (e.g., 19-30 s [336]), but without a rationale being provided and without an analysis of whether that varying duration had an impact on the results. Two trials [270,327] implemented a progressively increasing duration (e.g., 45 s in the first 3 weeks versus 75 s in the last 6 weeks [270]).…”

Section: Number Of Repetitions or Time Per Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 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