AzTrials
AzTrials

Muscle HypertoniaNCT02808923

Effects of Long-term Foam Rolling Compared to Static Stretching on Hamstring Muscle Flexibility

A study testing Foam Rolling and Static Stretching in people with Muscle Hypertonia, run by Creighton University.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study to to compare the long-term effects of foam rolling in comparison to static stretching and a control group on hamstring flexibility. The investigators hypothesize that participants in the foam rolling and static stretching group will demonstrate increased flexibility to the control group, but… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 19 to 40 years
Conditions the study is for
Muscle Hypertonia
What is being tested?
Foam Rolling and Static Stretching
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
45 participants
Where
No sites listed yet
Study dates
Jun 2016to Aug 2016
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 19 to 40 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Active 90/90 hamstring length goniometric measurement of greater than 10 degrees at baseline
  • Active straight leg raise of less than 90 degrees

Who cannot join

  • History of lower extremity injury including but not limited to sprain, strain, fracture, or any surgical intervention that lead to a decrease in activity greater than two weeks within the last six months
  • Current involvement in a lower extremity flexibility program outside of their regular activity

Trial locations and contacts

No sites are listed yet.

Trevor Schongalla, DPT contact

541-777-0686

trevorschongalla@creighton.edu

About this study

The purpose of this study to to compare the long-term effects of foam rolling in comparison to static stretching and a control group on hamstring flexibility. The investigators hypothesize that participants in the foam rolling and static stretching group will demonstrate increased flexibility to the control group, but will a difference will not be observed between the foam rolling and static stretching groups.

Being tested
Foam Rolling, Static Stretching
Medical subject headings
Muscle Hypertonia

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Foam RollingOther

    Participants will perform unilateral hamstring rolling for 2 repetitions of 1 minute with 15 second rest breaks on each leg with a 6"x 36" foam roller.

  • Static StretchingOther

    Participants will perform supine static hamstring stretch on a wall for 2 repetitions of 1 minute with 15 second rest breaks on each leg. When the position no longer causes a moderate stretching sensation to the hamstring, subjects will move their bodies closer to the wall to intensify the stretch.

Study groups in NCT02808923
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Foam rollingExperimentalParticipants in the foam rolling group will perform unilateral rolling of the hamstring musculature from ischial tuberosity to posterior knee in supine for 2 repetitions of 1 minute with 15 second rest between repetitions at a consistent cadence of 1 second superiorly and 1 second inferiorly. Subjects will be asked to adjust pressure as needed to maintain a consistent moderate pressure on the treatment area. Participants will use new and individually issued high density foam rollers that are 6" diameter x 36" length.
Receives: Other: Foam Rolling
Static stretchingExperimentalParticipants in the static stretching group will perform sustained static hamstring stretching for 2 repetitions of 1 minute bouts for the same leg before switching sides using moderate pressure in supine against the wall. Subjects will rest for 15 seconds between repetitions and adjust distance from the wall to perceive moderate intensity.
Receives: Other: Static Stretching
ControlNo interventionThe control group will perform their regular baseline activities without the addition of a specific lower extremity flexibility program. If the subjects are currently performing stretching of any mode at baseline, they will be allowed to continue with that activity.

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change in 90/90 hamstring length

    Participant is supine, hip flexed to 90 degrees, knee extension range of motion measured actively from 90 degree starting position with a standard goniometer

    Measured: Baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks

Secondary outcomes (3)

  1. Change in Active straight leg raise - Range of motion

    Participant is supine, with contralateral leg straight the participant will actively raise the leg until end of range with hip flexion being measured by goniometer

    Measured: Baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks

  2. Change in Active straight leg raise - Functional Movement Screen

    Participant is supine, with contralateral leg straight the participant will actively raise the leg until end of range. This end range will be compared to a standardized position using a dowel and will be scored according to the functional movement screen.

    Measured: Baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks

  3. Change in Sit-and-reach

    Using a standardized sit-and-reach box, participants will sit with legs together, knees extended, and hands overlapped and extended in front of the body. The subject will forward flex until end range of motion measured in centimeters.

    Measured: Baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted22 Jun 2016 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2016
  3. Primary completionAug 2016 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Investigator
Enrolment
45 participants (estimated)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02808923
Sponsor's protocol ID
908292-1
Status last verified
Jun 2016
First submitted
15 Jun 2016
Last updated
22 Jun 2016
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Non-identifying participant demographics and data on outcome measures (range of motion) for the study may be made available through publication or presentation on the study.

Publications

  • Mistry GS, Vyas NJ, Sheth, MS. Comparison of hamstrings flexibility in subjects with chronic low back pain versus normal individuals. J Clin Exp Res. 2014; 2(1): 85-88.

  • Barnes. The Basic Science Myofascial Release: Morphologic Change in Connective Tissue. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 1997;1(4):231-238.

  • Cunha AC, Burke TN, Franca FJ, Marques AP. Effect of global posture reeducation and of static stretching on pain, range of motion, and quality of life in women with chronic neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2008 Dec;63(6):763-70. doi: 10.1590/s1807-59322008000600010.

    PubMed 19060998

  • Cheatham SW, Kolber MJ, Cain M, Lee M. THE EFFECTS OF SELF-MYOFASCIAL RELEASE USING A FOAM ROLL OR ROLLER MASSAGER ON JOINT RANGE OF MOTION, MUSCLE RECOVERY, AND PERFORMANCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Nov;10(6):827-38.

    PubMed 26618062

  • Page P. Current concepts in muscle stretching for exercise and rehabilitation. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Feb;7(1):109-19.

    PubMed 22319684

  • Chan SP, Hong Y, Robinson PD. Flexibility and passive resistance of the hamstrings of young adults using two different static stretching protocols. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001 Apr;11(2):81-6. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2001.011002081.x.

    PubMed 11252465

  • Schleip R. Fascial plasticity - a new neurobiological explanation: Part 1. Jounral of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2003;7(1): 11-19.

  • MacDonald GZ, Penney MD, Mullaley ME, Cuconato AL, Drake CD, Behm DG, Button DC. An acute bout of self-myofascial release increases range of motion without a subsequent decrease in muscle activation or force. J Strength Cond Res. 2013 Mar;27(3):812-21. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31825c2bc1.

    PubMed 22580977

  • Sullivan KM, Silvey DB, Button DC, Behm DG. Roller-massager application to the hamstrings increases sit-and-reach range of motion within five to ten seconds without performance impairments. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Jun;8(3):228-36.

    PubMed 23772339

  • Pearcey GE, Bradbury-Squires DJ, Kawamoto JE, Drinkwater EJ, Behm DG, Button DC. Foam rolling for delayed-onset muscle soreness and recovery of dynamic performance measures. J Athl Train. 2015 Jan;50(1):5-13. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-50.1.01. Epub 2014 Nov 21.

    PubMed 25415413

  • Skarabot J, Beardsley C, Stirn I. Comparing the effects of self-myofascial release with static stretching on ankle range-of-motion in adolescent athletes. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015 Apr;10(2):203-12.

    PubMed 25883869

  • Peacock CA, Krein DD, Antonio J, Sanders GJ, Silver TA, Colas M. Comparing Acute Bouts of Sagittal Plane Progression Foam Rolling vs. Frontal Plane Progression Foam Rolling. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Aug;29(8):2310-5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000867.

    PubMed 25647651

  • Healey KC, Hatfield DL, Blanpied P, Dorfman LR, Riebe D. The effects of myofascial release with foam rolling on performance. J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jan;28(1):61-8. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182956569.

    PubMed 23588488

  • Halperin I, Aboodarda SJ, Button DC, Andersen LL, Behm DG. Roller massager improves range of motion of plantar flexor muscles without subsequent decreases in force parameters. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Feb;9(1):92-102.

    PubMed 24567860

  • Junker DH, Stoggl TL. The Foam Roll as a Tool to Improve Hamstring Flexibility. J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Dec;29(12):3480-5. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001007.

    PubMed 25992660

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Foam Rolling and Static Stretching in people with Muscle Hypertonia, run by Creighton University.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Jun 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

Contact Trevor Schongalla, DPT (541-777-0686, trevorschongalla@creighton.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change in 90/90 hamstring length (time frame: Baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02808923, which also lists 21 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Jun 2016; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 1 Nov 2026.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in