Skip to main content
. 2022 Mar 17;122(7):1545–1557. doi: 10.1007/s00421-022-04927-1

Table 1.

Participants’ characteristics, details of the interventions, and the outcomes of the included studies (n = 20)

Study Participants Type of stretching Type of foam rolling Intervention duration per muscle group Outcome
Smith et al. (2018) N = 29 sedentary to physically active males and females (age = 22 ± 3) Dynamic Non-vibration 90 s for foam rolling/dynamic stretching, duration per muscle group not clear Sit and Reach
Behara and Jacobson (2017) N = 12 well trained male Division 1 offensive lineman (age 20.0 ± 1.41) Dynamic Non-vibration 60 s for foam rolling/dynamic stretching, duration per muscle group not clear Hip flexion ROM
Su et al. (2017) N = 30 physically active males and females (21.43 ± 1.5) Static dynamic Non-vibration 90 s foam rolling and static stretching; 180 s dynamic stretching Sit-and-reach modified Thomas Test
Fairall et al. (2017) N = 12 male amateur softball players (age 36.92 ± 11.17) Static Non-vibration 120 s stretching; 180 s foam rolling Glenohumeral internal rotation ROM
Škarabot et al. (2015) N = 11 highly trained male and female swimmers (age 15.3 ± 1) Static Non-vibration 90 s Weight-bearing lunge test
Lee et al. (2018) N = 30 male college students (age 20.4 ± 1.2) Static Vibration non-vibration 90 s Leg extension ROM leg flexion ROM
Lyu et al. (2020) N = 20 male recreational active (age 21 ± 1.01) Static Vibration 90 s Ankle dorsiflexion ROM
Folli et al. (2021) N = 29 male and female healthy athletes (age 16 ± 1.23) Static Non-vibration 60 s Sit-and-reach
Penichet-Tomas et al. (2021) N = 8 male well trained rowers (24.8 ± 3.8) Static Non-vibration 90 s Sit-and-reach
Lopez-Samanes et al. (2021) N = 11 elite male tennis players (age 20.64 ± 3.56) Dynamic Non-vibration 60 s for foam rolling/dynamic stretching seconds per muscle group not clear Straight leg raise test
Connolly et al. (2020) N = 40 males and females (activity level not stated) (males age 22.5 ± 1.8; Females age 23.6 ± 4.2) Static Non-vibration 60 s Hip abduction ROM
Zaky et al. (2021) N = 20 elite female handball players (age 22.83 ± 1.52) Dynamic Non-vibration 60 s for foam rolling/dynamic stretching seconds per muscle group not clear Shoulder flexion ROM shoulder extension ROM Shoulder internal rotation ROM Shoulder external rotation ROM
Krause et al. (2018) N = 16 males and females (activity level not stated) (males age 31.2 ± 4.8; Females age 33.5 ± 5.6) Static Non-vibration 120 s Active knee flexion passive knee flexion
Sagiroglu et al. (2017) N = 16 male well trained combat athletes (age 23.9 ± 3.70) Static Non-vibration 60 s Sit-and-reach
Halperin et al. (2014) N = 14 male and female recreational active (males age 23 ± 4; Females age 22 ± 3) Static Non-vibration 90 s Weight-bearing lunge test
Monteiro et al. (2018) N = 12 male and female recreational active (age 27.88 ± 3.23) Static PNF non-vibration 60 s or 120 s Shoulder flexion ROM Shoulder extension ROM
Somers et al. (2020) N = 28 male and female physically active (Age foam rolling group 26.07 ± 4.83; Age stretching group 26.86 ± 4.75) Dynamic Non-vibration 120 s Weight-bearing lunge test
Smith et al. (2019) N = 33 males and females (activity level not stated) (males age 21.7 ± 1.7; females age 21.3 ± 2.0) Static Non-vibration 90 s Ankle dorsiflexion ROM
Pepper et al. (2021) N = 20 males and females (activity level not stated) (Age foam rolling group 27.1 ± 6.5; Age stretching group 26.7 ± 8.6) PNF Non-vibration 60 s Hip adduction ROM
Mohr et al. (2014) N = 20 recreational active (gender not stated) (Age foam rolling group 21.00 ± 2.21; Age stretching group 21.2 ± 2.44) Static Non-vibration 180 s Straight leg raise test

PNF proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation, ROM range of motion