↓ Skip to main content

Neurodynamic mobilization and foam rolling improved delayed-onset muscle soreness in a healthy adult population: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
104 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurodynamic mobilization and foam rolling improved delayed-onset muscle soreness in a healthy adult population: a randomized controlled clinical trial
Published in
PeerJ, October 2017
DOI 10.7717/peerj.3908
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blanca Romero-Moraleda, Roy La Touche, Sergio Lerma-Lara, Raúl Ferrer-Peña, Víctor Paredes, Ana Belén Peinado, Daniel Muñoz-García

Abstract

Compare the immediate effects of a Neurodynamic Mobilization (NM) treatment or foam roller (FR) treatment after DOMS. Double blind randomised clinical trial. The participants performed 100 drop jumps (5 sets of 20 repetitions, separated by 2 min rests) from a 0.5-m high box in a University biomechanics laboratory to induce muscle soreness. The participants were randomly assigned in a counter-balanced fashion to either a FR or NM treatment group. Thirty-two healthy subjects (21 males and 11 females, mean age 22.6 ± 2.2 years) were randomly assigned into the NM group (n = 16) or the FR group (n = 16). The numeric pain rating scale (NPRS; 0-10), isometric leg strength with dynamometry, surface electromyography at maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and muscle peak activation (MPA) upon landing after a test jump were measured at baseline, 48 h after baseline before treatment, and immediately after treatment. Both groups showed significant reduction in NPRS scores after treatment (NM: 59%, p < .01; FR: 45%, p < .01), but no difference was found between them (p > .05). The percentage change improvement in the MVIC for the rectus femoris was the only significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05) at post-treatment. After treatment, only the FR group had a statistically significant improvement (p < 0.01) in strength compared to pre-treatment. Our results illustrate that both treatments are effective in reducing pain perception after DOMS whereas only FR application showed differences for the MVIC in the rectus femoris and strength.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 51 18%
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 6%
Student > Postgraduate 16 6%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 95 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 69 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 104 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 May 2020.
All research outputs
#431,872
of 25,129,395 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#454
of 14,997 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,125
of 331,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#16
of 368 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,129,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,997 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 368 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.