5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of chronic static stretching interventions on jumping and sprinting performance–a systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          When improving athletic performance in sports with high-speed strength demands such as soccer, basketball, or track and field, the most common training method might be resistance training and plyometrics. Since a link between strength capacity and speed strength exists and recently published literature suggested chronic stretching routines may enhance maximum strength and hypertrophy, this review was performed to explore potential benefits on athletic performance. Based on current literature, a beneficial effect of static stretching on jumping and sprinting performance was hypothesized. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and Google scholar. In general, 14 studies revealed 29 effect sizes (ES) (20 for jumping, nine for sprinting). Subgroup analyses for jump performance were conducted for short- long- and no stretch shortening cycle trials. Qualitative evaluation was supplemented by performing a multilevel meta-analysis via R (Package: metafor). Significant positive results were documented in six out of 20 jump tests and in six out of nine sprint tests, while two studies reported negative adaptations. Quantitative data analyses indicated a positive but trivial magnitude of change on jumping performance (ES:0.16, p = 0.04), while all subgroup analyses did not support a positive effect ( p = 0.09–0.44). No significant influence of static stretching on sprint performance was obtained ( p = 0.08). Stretching does not seem to induce a sufficient stimulus to meaningfully enhance jumping and sprinting performance, which could possibly attributed to small weekly training volumes or lack of intensity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.

              Assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is common practice in systematic reviews. However, the reliability of data obtained with most quality assessment scales has not been established. This report describes 2 studies designed to investigate the reliability of data obtained with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale developed to rate the quality of RCTs evaluating physical therapist interventions. In the first study, 11 raters independently rated 25 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database. In the second study, 2 raters rated 120 RCTs randomly selected from the PEDro database, and disagreements were resolved by a third rater; this generated a set of individual rater and consensus ratings. The process was repeated by independent raters to create a second set of individual and consensus ratings. Reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items was calculated using multirater kappas, and reliability of the total (summed) score was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC [1,1]). The kappa value for each of the 11 items ranged from.36 to.80 for individual assessors and from.50 to.79 for consensus ratings generated by groups of 2 or 3 raters. The ICC for the total score was.56 (95% confidence interval=.47-.65) for ratings by individuals, and the ICC for consensus ratings was.68 (95% confidence interval=.57-.76). The reliability of ratings of PEDro scale items varied from "fair" to "substantial," and the reliability of the total PEDro score was "fair" to "good."
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/1630428/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2689640/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2682250/overviewRole: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/266875/overviewRole: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/481856/overviewRole: Role: Role:
                URI : https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/2684591/overviewRole: Role: Role: Role: Role:
                Journal
                Front Physiol
                Front Physiol
                Front. Physiol.
                Frontiers in Physiology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-042X
                26 March 2024
                2024
                : 15
                : 1372689
                Affiliations
                [1] 1 Institute of Human Movement Science, Sport and Health , University of Graz , Graz, Austria
                [2] 2 Institute of Sport Science , University of Klagenfurt , Klagenfurt am Wörthersee, Austria
                [3] 3 Institute of Interdisciplinary Exercise Science and Sports Medicine , MSH Medical School Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [4] 4 School of Human Kinetics and Recreation , Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John’s, NL, Canada
                Author notes

                Edited by: Marko Dragisa Stojanovic, University of Novi Sad, Serbia

                Reviewed by: Valerio Giustino, University of Palermo, Italy

                Luca Petrigna, University of Catania, Italy

                *Correspondence: Andreas Konrad, Andreas.konrad@ 123456uni-graz.at
                [ † ]

                ORCID: Konstantin Warneke, orcid.org/0000-0003-4964-2867; Patrik Freundorfer, orcid.org/0000-0003-4964-2867; David G. Behm, orcid.org/0000-0002-9406-6056; Andreas Konrad, orcid.org/0000-0002-5588-1824; Tobias Schmidt, orcid.org/0000-0002-0172-6001

                Article
                1372689
                10.3389/fphys.2024.1372689
                11002243
                38595642
                83521b52-fb77-45ed-9b9a-3946977cf164
                Copyright © 2024 Warneke, Freundorfer, Plöschberger, Behm, Konrad and Schmidt.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 January 2024
                : 13 March 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: Austrian Science Fund , doi 10.13039/501100002428;
                Award ID: J4484
                The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors acknowledge the financial support by the University of Graz.
                Categories
                Physiology
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                Exercise Physiology

                Anatomy & Physiology
                long-term,athletic performance,stretch-shortening cycle,plyometrics,speed strength,stretch training,static stretching

                Comments

                Comment on this article