Li · BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation 2023 · systematic review and network meta-analysis · n=35 studies

A systematic review and net meta-analysis of the effects of different warm-up methods on the acute effects of lower limb explosive strength.

Cited 15 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized/controlled trials

PubMed 37644585 · doi:10.1186/s13102-023-00703-6 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Authors conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 35 included studies comparing the acute effects of different warm-up methods (such as dynamic stretching, static stretching, combined dynamic and static stretching, and foam rolling) on lower limb explosive strength. Random-effects models were used to pool mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

What was found

Static combined with dynamic stretching (MD = 1.80 cm, 95% CI: 0.43 to 3.20) and dynamic stretching alone (MD = 1.60 cm, 95% CI: 0.67 to 2.60) significantly improved countermovement jump height compared to controls. Dynamic stretching for 7 to 10 minutes showed the largest effect size, though heterogeneity was high across stretching duration (I² = 80.4%), study population (I² = 77.2%), and age (I² = 75.6%). For sprint times, only dynamic stretching significantly improved performance (MD = -0.08 s, 95% CI: -0.15 to -0.008), whereas static stretching worsened sprint performance (MD = 0.07 s, 95% CI: 0.002 to 0.13). Foam rolling showed no significant difference compared to control.

Why it matters

This review reinforces that pre-exercise static stretching acutely impairs explosive running performance, whereas dynamic stretching—especially when performed for 7 to 10 minutes—enhances both sprint speed and vertical jump performance.

Limits

The abstract does not report the total participant sample size, specific sprint distances, or participant athletic backgrounds. High heterogeneity was present among moderating variables, and study quality or risk of bias assessments were not described in the abstract.

Cited by