Stretching, Warm-Up Programs and Injury: What the Sources Studied
A meta-analysis, a systematic review and randomised trials of multi-component neuromuscular warm-up programs such as FIFA 11+, with injury or physical performance as the outcome. The sources' conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no injury effect.
None, informational content.
- Persistent joint pain or sudden loss of range of motion, refer to a physician or physical therapist.
What the evidence says
The sources on this entry studied multi-component neuromuscular warm-up programs such as FIFA 11+, which combine strength, balance and dynamic movement, with injury or physical performance as the outcome. Vlachas 2022 is a systematic review with meta-analysis of 10 studies and 5984 participants. Pankaj 2021 is a systematic review. Five are randomised trials: Carow 2016, Silvers-Granelli 2024, Nuhu 2021, Peck 2017 and Hammes 2015. The sources' conclusions are not yet recorded in this library, so this entry states no injury effect for stretching or for warm-up programs, in either direction.
- Stretching before sport protects against injuries, no source conclusion on this entry is yet recorded in this library, so no injury effect of stretching is stated here either way.
- Flexibility is the main injury-prevention factor, the sources on this entry studied multi-component neuromuscular warm-up programs rather than stretching in isolation, and their conclusions are not yet recorded in this library.
- Stretching protects against injuries.
- Being flexible makes you injury-proof.
- Skipping stretching causes injuries.
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 7 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
What each source measured and concluded (7)
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- systematic review with meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N = 5984 participants across 10 studies
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
- How it was read
- read in full text
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.