Logo do repositório
 
Publicação

Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021-04-07Artigo científico Acesso aberto
Ver registo simples
datacite.subject.fosCiências Médicas::Ciências da Saúde
datacite.subject.fosCiências Médicas::Outras Ciências Médicas
datacite.subject.sdg03:Saúde de Qualidade
datacite.subject.sdg04:Educação de Qualidade
datacite.subject.sdg05:Igualdade de Género
datacite.subject.sdg10:Reduzir as Desigualdades
dc.contributor.authorAfonso, José
dc.contributor.authorRamirez-Campillo, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.authorMoscão, João
dc.contributor.authorRocha, Tiago
dc.contributor.authorZacca, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.authorMartins, Alexandre
dc.contributor.authorMilheiro, André A.
dc.contributor.authorFerreira, João
dc.contributor.authorSarmento, Hugo
dc.contributor.authorClemente, Filipe Manuel
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-11T16:17:37Z
dc.date.available2026-03-11T16:17:37Z
dc.date.issued2021-04-07
dc.description.abstract(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/in-plasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Re-sults: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.eng
dc.description.sponsorshipRichard Inman: language editing and proof reading. Pedro Morouço: pre-submission scientific review of the manuscript. Daniel Moreira-Gonçalves and Fábio Nakamura, plus two experts that chose to remain anonymous: Review of inclusion criteria and included articles, and proposal of additional articles to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Filipe Manuel Clemente: This work is supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior through national funds and when applicable co-funded EU funds under the project UIDB/50008/2020.
dc.identifier.citationAfonso, J.; Ramirez-Campillo, R.; Moscão, J.; Rocha, T.; Zacca, R.; Martins, A.; Milheiro, A.A.; Ferreira, J.; Sarmento, H.; Clemente, F.M. Strength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2021, 9, 427. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9040427.
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/healthcare9040427
dc.identifier.eissn2227-9032
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.8/15841
dc.language.isoeng
dc.peerreviewedyes
dc.publisherMDPI
dc.relationInstituto de Telecomunicações
dc.relation.hasversionhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85104477269
dc.relation.ispartofHealthcare
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectflexibility
dc.subjectmobility
dc.subjectjoints
dc.subjectresistance training
dc.subjectplyometrics
dc.titleStrength Training versus Stretching for Improving Range of Motion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysiseng
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.awardNumberUIDB/50008/2020
oaire.awardTitleInstituto de Telecomunicações
oaire.awardURIinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/6817 - DCRRNI ID/UIDB%2F50008%2F2020/PT
oaire.citation.endPage26
oaire.citation.issue4
oaire.citation.startPage1
oaire.citation.titleHealthcare (Switzerland)
oaire.citation.volume9
oaire.fundingStream6817 - DCRRNI ID
oaire.versionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
person.familyNameRocha
person.givenNameTiago Carvalho
person.identifier.orcid0000-0003-2785-4463
project.funder.identifierhttp://doi.org/10.13039/501100001871
project.funder.nameFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3f1a38a1-14b0-4e2e-a152-887fe3c35780
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery3f1a38a1-14b0-4e2e-a152-887fe3c35780
relation.isProjectOfPublication0836c6a6-afd0-499e-8a16-612dd27ec1dc
relation.isProjectOfPublication.latestForDiscovery0836c6a6-afd0-499e-8a16-612dd27ec1dc

Ficheiros

Principais
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
Strength training versus stretching for improving range of motion A systematic review and meta-analysis.pdf
Tamanho:
2.79 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
(1) Background: Stretching is known to improve range of motion (ROM), and evidence has suggested that strength training (ST) is effective too. However, it is unclear whether its efficacy is comparable to stretching. The goal was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of ST and stretching on ROM (INPLASY 10.37766/in-plasy2020.9.0098). (2) Methods: Cochrane Library, EBSCO, PubMed, Scielo, Scopus, and Web of Science were consulted in October 2020 and updated in March 2021, followed by search within reference lists and expert suggestions (no constraints on language or year). Eligibility criteria: (P) Humans of any condition; (I) ST interventions; (C) stretching (O) ROM; (S) supervised RCTs. (3) Re-sults: Eleven articles (n = 452 participants) were included. Pooled data showed no differences between ST and stretching on ROM (ES = −0.22; 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.12; p = 0.206). Sub-group analyses based on risk of bias, active vs. passive ROM, and movement-per-joint analyses showed no between-protocol differences in ROM gains. (4) Conclusions: ST and stretching were not different in their effects on ROM, but the studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of design, protocols and populations, and so further research is warranted. However, the qualitative effects of all the studies were quite homogeneous.
Ver/Abrir
Licença
A mostrar 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura indisponível
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.32 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Descrição:
Ver/Abrir

Coleções

ESECS - Artigos em revistas internacionais