Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,...Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,the evidence seems heterogeneous or unsupportive.The discrepancies even affect some systematic reviews,possibly due to heterogeneous eligibility criteria and search strategies.This consensus paper seeks to unify the divergent findings on stretching and its implications for both athletic performance and clinical practices by delivering evidence-based recommendations.Methods:A panel of 20 experts with a blend of practical experience and scholarly knowledge was assembled.The panel meticulously reviewed existing systematic reviews,defined key terminologies(e.g.,consensus definitions for different stretching modes),and crafted guidelines using a Delphi consensus approach(minimum required agreement:80%).The analysis focused on 8 topics,including stretching's acute and chronic(long-term)effects on range of motion,strength performance,muscle hypertrophy,stiffness,injury prevention,muscle recovery,posture correction,and cardiovascular health.Results:There was consensus that chronic and acute stretching(a)improves range of motion(although alternatives exist)and(b)reduces muscle stiffness(which may not always be desirable);the panel also agreed that chronic stretching(c)may promote vascular health,but more research is warranted.In contrast,consensus was found that stretch training does not(a)contribute substantively to muscle growth,(b)serve as an allencompassing injury prevention strategy,(c)improve posture,or(d)acutely enhance post-exercise recovery.Conclusion:These recommendations provide guidance for athletes and practitioners,highlighting research gaps that should be addressed to more comprehensively understand the full scope of stretching effects.展开更多
Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,t...Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature.Therefore,we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.Methods:After a systematic search in PubMed,Web of Science,and SPORTDiscus databases,38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included.These studies had 1134 participants in total,and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes(ESs).ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.Results:Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair(PEDro score=4.58)with low to moderate certainty of evidence.Results showed no significant differences in ROM(ES=0.01,p=0.88),stiffness(ES=0.09,p=0.67),or passive peak torque(ES=-0.30,p=0.14)between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities.Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.Conclusion:Based on current literature,our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs.The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM,passive peak torque increases,or stiffness reductions.展开更多
Background:Team-sport players have a particularly high injury risk.Although female sex is considered a risk factor,it is still unknown whether female and male team-sport players,in fact,differ in their injury rates.We...Background:Team-sport players have a particularly high injury risk.Although female sex is considered a risk factor,it is still unknown whether female and male team-sport players,in fact,differ in their injury rates.We aimed to compare injury rates between female and male players by systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing injury surveillance studies of both sexes in order to evaluate sex-specific differences in team-sport injuries.Methods:Studies that prospectively collected injury data for high-level female and male players(age≥16 years)in basketball,field hockey,football(soccer),handball,rugby(union and sevens),and volleyball were included.Two reviewers(AZ and ALR)independently assessed study quality and extracted data for overall,match,training,and severe injuries(>28 days’time loss)as well as data regarding injury locations and types.Incidence rate ratios(IRRs)were pooled in a meta-analysis,and meta-regression analysis was performed when 10 or more studies were available.Results:Of 20 studies,9 studies reported injury data from football,3 studies from rugby,3 studies from handball,1 study from basketball,1 study from field hockey,2 studies from volleyball,and 1 study from basketball and field hockey.For overall injuries,the pooled IRR=0.86(95%confidence interval(95%CI):0.76-0.98)indicated significantly more injuries in male than in female players.For injury location,the pooled IRR showed higher injury rates in male athletes than in female athletes for upper extremity,hip/groin,thigh,ande foot injuries.Female players had a significantly higher rate of anterior cruciate ligament injuries(IRR=2.15,95%CI:1.27-3.62)than male players.No significant sex-specific differences in IRR were found for match,training,severe injuries,concussions,or ankle sprains.Conclusion:Our meta-analysis provides evidence for sex-specific differences in the injury rates in team sports.Further epidemiological studies including both sexes in sports other than football are needed in order to strengthen the evidence.展开更多
文摘Background:Stretching has wide appeal,but there seems to exist some mismatch between its purported applications and what the evidence shows.There is compelling evidence for some stretching applications,but for others,the evidence seems heterogeneous or unsupportive.The discrepancies even affect some systematic reviews,possibly due to heterogeneous eligibility criteria and search strategies.This consensus paper seeks to unify the divergent findings on stretching and its implications for both athletic performance and clinical practices by delivering evidence-based recommendations.Methods:A panel of 20 experts with a blend of practical experience and scholarly knowledge was assembled.The panel meticulously reviewed existing systematic reviews,defined key terminologies(e.g.,consensus definitions for different stretching modes),and crafted guidelines using a Delphi consensus approach(minimum required agreement:80%).The analysis focused on 8 topics,including stretching's acute and chronic(long-term)effects on range of motion,strength performance,muscle hypertrophy,stiffness,injury prevention,muscle recovery,posture correction,and cardiovascular health.Results:There was consensus that chronic and acute stretching(a)improves range of motion(although alternatives exist)and(b)reduces muscle stiffness(which may not always be desirable);the panel also agreed that chronic stretching(c)may promote vascular health,but more research is warranted.In contrast,consensus was found that stretch training does not(a)contribute substantively to muscle growth,(b)serve as an allencompassing injury prevention strategy,(c)improve posture,or(d)acutely enhance post-exercise recovery.Conclusion:These recommendations provide guidance for athletes and practitioners,highlighting research gaps that should be addressed to more comprehensively understand the full scope of stretching effects.
文摘Background:Acute improvement in range of motion(ROM)is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling,which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness.Interestingly,these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature.Therefore,we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.Methods:After a systematic search in PubMed,Web of Science,and SPORTDiscus databases,38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included.These studies had 1134 participants in total,and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes(ESs).ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.Results:Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair(PEDro score=4.58)with low to moderate certainty of evidence.Results showed no significant differences in ROM(ES=0.01,p=0.88),stiffness(ES=0.09,p=0.67),or passive peak torque(ES=-0.30,p=0.14)between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities.Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.Conclusion:Based on current literature,our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs.The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM,passive peak torque increases,or stiffness reductions.
文摘Background:Team-sport players have a particularly high injury risk.Although female sex is considered a risk factor,it is still unknown whether female and male team-sport players,in fact,differ in their injury rates.We aimed to compare injury rates between female and male players by systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing injury surveillance studies of both sexes in order to evaluate sex-specific differences in team-sport injuries.Methods:Studies that prospectively collected injury data for high-level female and male players(age≥16 years)in basketball,field hockey,football(soccer),handball,rugby(union and sevens),and volleyball were included.Two reviewers(AZ and ALR)independently assessed study quality and extracted data for overall,match,training,and severe injuries(>28 days’time loss)as well as data regarding injury locations and types.Incidence rate ratios(IRRs)were pooled in a meta-analysis,and meta-regression analysis was performed when 10 or more studies were available.Results:Of 20 studies,9 studies reported injury data from football,3 studies from rugby,3 studies from handball,1 study from basketball,1 study from field hockey,2 studies from volleyball,and 1 study from basketball and field hockey.For overall injuries,the pooled IRR=0.86(95%confidence interval(95%CI):0.76-0.98)indicated significantly more injuries in male than in female players.For injury location,the pooled IRR showed higher injury rates in male athletes than in female athletes for upper extremity,hip/groin,thigh,ande foot injuries.Female players had a significantly higher rate of anterior cruciate ligament injuries(IRR=2.15,95%CI:1.27-3.62)than male players.No significant sex-specific differences in IRR were found for match,training,severe injuries,concussions,or ankle sprains.Conclusion:Our meta-analysis provides evidence for sex-specific differences in the injury rates in team sports.Further epidemiological studies including both sexes in sports other than football are needed in order to strengthen the evidence.
