MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388658255 · doi:10.1186/s40798-023-00652-x

Acute Effects of Various Stretching Techniques on Range of Motion: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4388658255 on OpenAlexafffund
David G. Behm, Shahab Alizadeh, Abdolhamid Daneshjoo, Saman Hadjizadeh Anvar, Andrew Graham, Ali Zahiri, Reza Goudini, Chris Edwards, Robyn Culleton, Carina Scharf, Andreas Konrad

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine - Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsMeta-analysisRange (aeronautics)Range of motionMedicineComputer scienceMaterials scienceSurgeryInternal medicineComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although stretching can acutely increase joint range of motion (ROM), there are a variety of factors which could influence the extent of stretch-induced flexibility such as participant characteristics, stretching intensities, durations, type (technique), and muscle or joint tested. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the acute effects of stretching on ROM including moderating variables such as muscles tested, stretch techniques, intensity, sex, and trained state. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed from 47 eligible studies (110 effect sizes). A mixed-effect meta-analysis subgroup analysis was also performed on the moderating variables. A meta-regression was also performed between age and stretch duration. GRADE analysis was used to assess the quality of evidence obtained from this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a small ROM standard mean difference in favor of an acute bout of stretching compared to non-active control condition (ES = −0.555; Z = −8.939; CI (95%) −0.677 to −0.434; p < 0.001; I2 = 33.32). While there were ROM increases with sit and reach (P = 0.038), hamstrings (P < 0.001), and triceps surae (P = 0.002) tests, there was no change with the hip adductor test (P = 0.403). Further subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in stretch intensity (P = 0.76), trained state (P = 0.99), stretching techniques (P = 0.72), and sex (P = 0.89). Finally, meta-regression showed no relationship between the ROM standard mean differences to age (R2 = −0.03; P = 0.56) and stretch duration (R2 = 0.00; P = 0.39), respectively. GRADE analysis indicated that we can be moderately confident in the effect estimates. A single bout of stretching can be considered effective for providing acute small magnitude ROM improvements for most ROM tests, which are not significantly affected by stretch intensity, participants’ trained state, stretching techniques, and sex.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.036
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Medicine - OpenSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207