MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514809346

Specific and cross over effects of massage for muscle soreness: randomized controlled trial.

2014· article· en· W1514809346 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Jay, Emil Sundstrup, Stine D Søndergaard, David G. Behm, Mikkel Brandt, Charlotte Ahlgren Særvoll, Markus Due Jakobsen, Lars L. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMassageHamstringDelayed onset muscle sorenessTendernessPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationRandomized controlled trialSurgeryMuscle damageInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Muscle soreness can negatively interfere with the activities of daily living as well as sports performance. In the working environment, a common problem is muscle tenderness, soreness and pain, especially for workers frequently exposed to unilateral high repetitive movements tasks. The aim of the study is therefore to investigate the acute effect of massage applied using a simple device Thera-band roller Massager on laboratory induced hamstring muscle soreness, and the potential cross over effect to the non-massaged limb. METHODS: 22 healthy untrained men (Mean age 34 +/- 7 years; mean height 181.7 +/- 6.9 cm; mean weight 80.6 +/- 6.4 kg; BMI: 24.5 +/- 1.3) with no prior history of knee, low back or neck injury or other adverse health issues were recruited. Participants visited the researchers on two separate occasions, separated by 48 hours, each time providing a soreness rating (modified visual analog scale 0-10), and being tested for pressure pain threshold (PPT) and active range of motion (ROM) of the hamstring muscles. During the first visit, delayed onset muscular soreness of the hamstring muscles was induced by 10 x 10 repetitions of the stiff-legged dead-lift. On the second visit participants received either 1) 10 minutes of roller massage on one leg, while the contralateral leg served as a cross over control, or 2) Resting for 10 minutes with no massage at all. Measurement of soreness, PPT and ROM were taken immediately before and at 0, 10, 30 and 60 min. after treatment. RESULTS: There was a significant group by time interaction for soreness (p < 0.0001) and PPT (p = 0.0007), with the massage group experiencing reduced soreness and increasing PPT compared with the control group. There was no group by time interaction for ROM (p = 0.18). At 10 min. post massage there was a significant reduction in soreness of the non-massaged limb in the cross over control group compared to controls but this effect was lost 30 minutes post massage. CONCLUSION: Massage with a roller device reduces muscle soreness and is accompanied by a higher PPT of the affected muscle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c; outcomes research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207