Comparison between Immediate Effects of MET and Passive Stretching Techniques on Hamstring Flexibility in Patients with Hamstring Tightness: An Experimental Study

doi:10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12701

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is crucial for the development of more effective treatment protocols and informed decision-making in physiotherapy practices. The comprehensive review of existing literature and empirical studies forms a robust foundation for this study, setting the stage for a significant contribution to the field (11)(12)(13).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Static Stretching and Muscle Energy Technique (MET) for Young Adults with Hamstring Tightness

Ahmad,

Irfan,

Samad

et al. 2023

JHRR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hamstring tightness is a common issue among young adults, often leading to decreased flexibility and a higher risk of injury, particularly in individuals who are physically active. The efficacy of Muscle Energy Techniques (METs) and static stretching in treating this condition has been debated, with mixed outcomes reported in the literature. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of METs and static stretching on hamstring flexibility in young adults, providing evidence-based insights for clinical practice in physical therapy. Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial was conducted with 60 healthy adults (age 18-32 years) experiencing prolonged hamstring tightness, split into two groups: an experimental group receiving METs and a control group undergoing static stretching. Data were collected using the Active Knee Extension Test (AKET) and the Straight Leg Raise (SLR) Test to evaluate hamstring flexibility pre- and post-intervention. The study took place in multiple clinical settings, and participants were randomly assigned to either intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 25, with a significance level set at p<0.05. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in hamstring flexibility. The experimental group demonstrated an increase in AKET from a mean of 43.36 (pre-treatment) to 84.83 (post-treatment), and in SLR from a mean of 64.23 to 85.93 (p<0.001). The control group also showed improvement, with AKET rising from a mean of 47.50 to 75.76, and SLR from 62.76 to 75.43 (p<0.001). Conclusion: The study concluded that both METs and static stretching are effective for improving hamstring flexibility. METs may have a slight edge in efficacy, but static stretching also significantly enhances flexibility, supporting its continued use in clinical practice. These findings can guide physical therapists in selecting appropriate treatment strategies for hamstring tightness in young adults.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%