Scholarlink

Background <p>Stretching is widely used to increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint and has been shown to impact both stretched and non-stretched limbs.</p> Objective <p>Given conflicting findings regarding the acute effects of antagonist muscle stretching on agonist performance (e.g., strength, power) and ROM, this meta-analysis aims to clarify these issues and identify moderating factors.</p> Methods <p>Following PRISMA 2020 and ethical publishing guidance, the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251014186). MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to April 2025. Eligibility followed PICOS criteria: healthy participants; unloaded static, dynamic or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching of an antagonist; passive control; agonist performance or ROM outcomes; randomised or controlled pre–post trials. Risk of bias was assessed with the PEDro scale. Where &gt; 2 studies were available, pooled effects were calculated with a robust-variance-estimation random-effects model (robumeta R package); otherwise, results were described qualitatively. Effect sizes (SMD) were interpreted as trivial (&lt; 0.2), small (0.2–0.49), moderate (0.5–0.79) or large (≥ 0.8). Moderator, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses examined stretch duration and stretching technique. Certainty of evidence was graded with GRADE.</p> Results <p>Nine eligible trials involving 302 healthy participants met the criteria. Antagonist stretching produced a trivial, non-significant improvement in agonist performance (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI −&#xa0;0.10–0.56, p = 0.14; low certainty). Moderator analyses showed no influence of stretch duration per bout (&lt; 120&#xa0;s vs ≥ 120&#xa0;s) or stretching type (static, dynamic, PNF). Qualitative synthesis for ROM parameters suggested weak evidence for a small agonist ROM increase. Funnel-plot inspection revealed no clear publication-bias pattern; Egger’s test was not applied (&lt; 10 studies). Findings are constrained by small sample sizes, moderate heterogeneity and predominantly fair-quality trials, yielding low overall certainty.</p> Conclusion <p>Current evidence indicates no clinically meaningful acute effect of antagonist stretching on agonist performance or ROM, irrespective of stretch duration or technique. Larger, high-quality trials are required to establish whether antagonist stretching offers practical benefits.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Impact of a Single Bout of Antagonist Stretching on Agonist Muscle Performance and Range of Motion: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月9日

查看全文
  • Andreas Konrad,
  • Konstantin Warneke,
  • Stanislav D. Siegel,
  • Megan Squires,
  • Ethan Lawson,
  • Javier Gene-Morales,
  • David G. Behm

摘要

Background

Stretching is widely used to increase the range of motion (ROM) of a joint and has been shown to impact both stretched and non-stretched limbs.

Objective

Given conflicting findings regarding the acute effects of antagonist muscle stretching on agonist performance (e.g., strength, power) and ROM, this meta-analysis aims to clarify these issues and identify moderating factors.

Methods

Following PRISMA 2020 and ethical publishing guidance, the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251014186). MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to April 2025. Eligibility followed PICOS criteria: healthy participants; unloaded static, dynamic or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) stretching of an antagonist; passive control; agonist performance or ROM outcomes; randomised or controlled pre–post trials. Risk of bias was assessed with the PEDro scale. Where > 2 studies were available, pooled effects were calculated with a robust-variance-estimation random-effects model (robumeta R package); otherwise, results were described qualitatively. Effect sizes (SMD) were interpreted as trivial (< 0.2), small (0.2–0.49), moderate (0.5–0.79) or large (≥ 0.8). Moderator, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses examined stretch duration and stretching technique. Certainty of evidence was graded with GRADE.

Results

Nine eligible trials involving 302 healthy participants met the criteria. Antagonist stretching produced a trivial, non-significant improvement in agonist performance (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI − 0.10–0.56, p = 0.14; low certainty). Moderator analyses showed no influence of stretch duration per bout (< 120 s vs ≥ 120 s) or stretching type (static, dynamic, PNF). Qualitative synthesis for ROM parameters suggested weak evidence for a small agonist ROM increase. Funnel-plot inspection revealed no clear publication-bias pattern; Egger’s test was not applied (< 10 studies). Findings are constrained by small sample sizes, moderate heterogeneity and predominantly fair-quality trials, yielding low overall certainty.

Conclusion

Current evidence indicates no clinically meaningful acute effect of antagonist stretching on agonist performance or ROM, irrespective of stretch duration or technique. Larger, high-quality trials are required to establish whether antagonist stretching offers practical benefits.