EN | UA
EN | UA

Help Support

Back

Stretching in sports: What 300 studies miss on injury prevention and performance!

Stretching in athletics Stretching in athletics
Stretching in athletics Stretching in athletics

What's new?

Stretching studies should explore injury prevention and dose-response relationships in broader athlete populations.

Stretching in sports has been widely studied, but a recent systematic scoping review in “Sports Medicine” revealed significant gaps in understanding its effects on healthy athletes. Despite numerous trials, many areas remain underexplored, and existing research often lacks consistency, making comparisons difficult.

Based on the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, the studies comprising healthy athletes exposed to acute and/or chronic stretching interventions were considered. Six renowned databases were searched until January 2023, with data synthesized and an evidence gap map created to highlight research gaps. Of the 300 studies reviewed, involving 7,080 athletes, elite-level athletes were underrepresented, with only about 5% of studies including tier 4 athletes and none involving tier 5.

Sample sizes were often small, with more than 85% of studies featuring fewer than 20 participants.

Most research focused on adult male athletes (about 65%) in sports that do not require extreme ranges of motion (such as gymnastics). Some other key aspects of the review were:

  • Acute vs. Chronic Effects: Most studies focused on acute effects, with less than 20% examining long-term impacts.
  • Timing of Stretching: Stretching was predominantly done during warm-ups (85%), with limited research on post-exercise stretching.
  • Targeted Areas: The lower limbs were the primary focus (75%).
  • Stretching Techniques: Static active stretching (62.3%) was the most common, with minimal research on ballistic stretching.
  • Comparators: Most studies used passive controls, while 25% included active controls like strength training.
  • Dose Reporting: Reporting varied significantly, with inconsistent methods and incomplete dose details (e.g., 10 repetitions/10 seconds for mobility stretches).
  • Outcomes: Nearly 90% of trials focused on performance outcomes, but less than 15% assessed sport-specific outcomes and only 5 trials reported injury-related outcomes.

In conclusion, research on stretching has major gaps, with many areas underexplored and others too varied for reliable comparisons. Studies often feature small sample sizes (≤20 participants) and a lack of elite athlete representation. Most research emphasizes on adult male athletes in sports with moderate motion requirements, primarily examining the acute effects of static and dynamic stretching. Dose-response relationships and outcomes beyond general performance, such as injury prevention, are poorly studied. These gaps must be prioritized in future research funding.

Source:

Sports Medicine

Article:

What We Do Not Know About Stretching in Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map from 300 Trials

Authors:

José Afonso et al.

Comments (0)

You want to delete this comment? Please mention comment Invalid Text Content Text Content cannot me more than 1000 Something Went Wrong Cancel Confirm Confirm Delete Hide Replies View Replies View Replies en
Try: