Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Does Vibration Foam Roller Influence Performance and Recovery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sports Medicine - Open volume 8, Article number: 32 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Foam rolling has been extensively investigated, showing benefits in performance and recovery. Recently, vibration has been added to foam rollers, with hypothesized advantages over conventional foam rollers. However, there is no systematic evidence in this regard.

Objective

To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis about the effects of vibration foam roller (VFR) on performance and recovery.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and SportDiscus according to the PRISMA guidelines. The outcomes included performance (jump, agility and strength) and recovery variables (blood flow, pain and fatigue) measured after an intervention with VFR. The methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. A random-effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis.

Results

Initially, 556 studies were found and after the eligibility criteria 10 studies were included in the systematic review and 9 in the meta-analysis. There was no significant effects on jump performance (SMD = 0.14 [95% CI − 0.022 to 0.307]; p = 0.101; I2 = 1.08%) and no significant beneficial effects were reported on isokinetic strength (SMD = 0.16 [95% CI − 0.041 to 0.367]; p = 0.117; I2 = 9.7%). Recovery appears to be enhanced after VFR interventions, but agility does not seem to increase after VFR interventions.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that VFR could have great potential for increasing jump performance, agility, strength and enhancing recovery. Further research is needed to confirm the effects of VFR on performance and recovery.

Trial Registration This investigation was registered in PROSPERO with the code CRD42021238104.

Key Points

  • Vibration foam roller is suggested as an effective tool to increase jump performance and recovery.

  • The potential benefits of vibration foam roller on agility and strength need to be confirmed with further investigation.

  • The underlying physiological effects of vibration foam rollers are unclear.

Background

Massage rollers have been described as an effective method to decrease thickening, adhesion and, the tension of the fascial tissue and muscles [1, 2]. These effects could be achieved with many devices, but in recent years one of the most widely used is the foam roller (FR) [3, 4]. During foam rolling, soft tissues are rolled and compressed by applying bodyweight, which has been demonstrated to stimulate the muscle and fascial tissue, generating changes at neuromuscular level [4, 5]. The benefits of FR have been largely described, showing an increase of range of motion (ROM) [3], decrease in pain [4, 6] and effects on performance and recovery [7]. In addition, FR has become a popular practice before and after different sports, due to its affordability, ease, and time-efficient applicability [4].

Recently, vibration has been added to the FR devices with the aim of increasing their benefits [8]. Specifically, this vibration was expected to produce an in-depth stimulation of the tissues rolled, especially the mechanoreceptors of the joints and blood vessels [9, 10]. Moreover, a greater contribution of the mechanoreceptors has been reported with vibration foam roller (VFR), suggesting that the vibration could influence deeper into the tissue through mechanisms of the neuromuscular system but also at a central level [8, 11,12,13]. In this regard, VFR appears to have higher benefits than FR in ROM [14,15,16,17], performance [7, 18, 19] and recovery [9, 10, 20], but more evidence is needed to support these results since several studies also reported detrimental effects in jump and strength performance [15, 21]. FR and VFR are easy to use and their benefits could be achieved with short-time interventions [7, 21]. For these reasons, the use of these tools has been included in several sport practices, both in the warm-up and after exercise to cool down or decrease the effects of exercise-induced fatigue [9,10,11]. Nevertheless, VFR has been less studied, and it is considerably more expensive than FR, so its value is still unclear.

To date, several systematic reviews have been conducted to analyze the effects of FR on recovery and performance [4, 6, 7, 11, 21]. Overall, these studies showed positive effects of FR on performance both pre and post-exercise and on recovery, analyzing fatigue and pain after exercise [22]. However, despite the increasing scientific interest in VFR and its benefits, the evidence is controversial and there is still no consensus about this tool. Nevertheless, considering the prior neurophysiological explanations, VFR appears to have great potential [23]. Moreover, it has to be pointed out that to date no systematic reviews or meta-analysis examining the effects of VFR on these variables have been conducted. Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations, this study aimed to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis about the acute effects of VFR on performance and recovery.

The PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) question was as follows: Does vibration foam roller (I) influence performance and recovery (O) prior or after exercise (C) in healthy subjects (P)?

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [24] and following the recommendations for Wager and Wiffen for ethical publishing of systematic reviews [25]. This investigation was registered in PROSPERO with the code CRD42021238104.

Search Strategy

In April 2021, a systematic and structured literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and SportDiscus. The terms for each search were similar and according to the requirements of each database, using the free text words: “vibration foam roller”, “vibration foam rolling”, “vibration rolling” and “vibration roller” linked by “OR”.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The selection criteria were established according to the PICO question as follows:

  • Participants Studies with subjects aged ≥ 18 years old were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Those who did not show information about age were discarded. In addition, investigations with healthy subjects were selected and those with chronic or acute injuries were considered ineligible.

  • Intervention All articles included performed at least one intervention with VFR. Studies with interventions based only on foam roller without vibration or roller massages were discarded.

  • Comparison Studies comparing VFR interventions with other methods such as foam roller without vibration, stretching, rest or massage were selected for this review.

  • Outcomes The outcomes selected were recovery and performance variables.

  • Type of Study Original articles with at least one intervention based on VFR and published in English or Spanish were included.

  • Exclusion Criteria Studies with no intervention or performed on unhealthy people were excluded. Additionally, letters to the editor, systematic reviews and meta-analysis, abstracts, opinion or conference papers were also excluded.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two independent investigators (A.A.C and A.P.F) performed the screening, eligibility and extraction of the data from the studies in order to avoid potential bias. In case of disagreement, a third investigator (A.K) was consulted to reach a decision. All this process was performed based on the minimum requirements of Cochrane for Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria [26].

Methodological Quality

All the studies included were evaluated using of the PEDro scale, which has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid method to assess the methodological quality of intervention studies [27]. This scale presents 11 items in three different sections: eligibility and randomization of the subjects (1–4), blinding (5–7) and consistency of the results (8–11). The score for each study was calculated by summing the score of 10 items examining the potential sources of bias, giving one point to the study if it clearly satisfies the criteria. Two investigators performed independently the evaluation of the studies (A.A.C and A.P.F) and after discussion, a third investigator was consulted in case of disagreement (A.K).

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.2.064 for Windows (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, United States). Random effects models were conducted to determine and compare the effects between pre-and post-intervention of VFR on the jump and isokinetic strength performance. The standard mean difference (SMD) values with 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate the magnitude of foam roller vibration intervention. The SMD were interpreted as trivial (SMD < 0.2), small (0.2 ≥ SMD < 0.5), moderate (0.5 ≥ SMD < 0.8), or large (SMD ≥ 0.8) [28]. The significance level was established at p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. This statistic represents the percentage of variation in estimated effects across studies due to heterogeneity rather than chance. According to Higgins et al. [26] the I2 was interpreted as low (I2 < 25%), moderate (25% ≥ I2 < 75%), and high (I2 ≥ 75%).

Results

Study Selection

The initial systematic search retrieved 556 articles and after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria and removing duplicate items, a total of 10 studies were finally included for the systematic review and 9 of them for the quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis. The process of the systematic search is described in Fig. 1 through a flow chart according to PRISMA guidelines.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart outlining the search process

Full size image

Initially, 11 studies were selected but one [29] was excluded as it did not meet all the inclusion criteria. Specifically, this study appears to assess joint performance, but an in-depth analysis showed that the variable examined was the range of movement, which is not included in the eligibility criteria of this systematic review and meta-analysis. Moreover, one study [19] was excluded from the meta-analysis since the design of the investigation did not provide pre-test measurements and therefore, the meta-analysis could not be conducted.

Characteristics of the Studies

The main characteristics of the 10 studies included in this systematic review are shown in Table 1. Jointly, they evaluated a total of 236 subjects (74.1% male) through a crossover design (n = 7) [9, 13, 14, 19, 29,30,31] or a randomized trial (n = 3) [10, 15, 18]. Seven investigations [9, 10, 13,14,15, 29, 31] compared the use of VFR with FR and other studies analyzed the effects of VFR in comparison with static (n = 4) [14, 19, 27, 28] or dynamic stretching (n = 3) [15, 19, 27]. The main outcomes analyzed in performance were jump (n = 6) [10, 13, 15, 18, 29, 31], agility (n = 3) [18, 27, 28] and isokinetic strength (n = 4) [14, 19, 30, 31]. Additionally, in order to assess the recovery, the studies included measurements of blood flow [9], fatigue [19] and pain [10].

Table 1 Summary of the characteristics of the studies and results of the intervention
Full size table

Methodological Quality

All the studies included were analyzed in terms of methodological quality with the PEDro scale [27]. Table 2 describes the score in each study for each item and the total score obtained, finding nine articles with a score of 5/11 [9, 10, 13,14,15, 18, 29,30,31] and one with 3/11 [19]. As shown in Table 2, criteria 3, 5 and 6 were not satisfied in any of the included studies.

Table 2 Results of the methodological quality evaluation using the PEDro scale
Full size table

Jump Performance

Six studies analyzed jump performance with the Board Jump test [30], the Vertical Jump test [15], the Drop Jump test [13, 31] and the countermovement jump test [10, 18].

For this variable, three studies found an increase in jump performance with VFR but similar to other interventions such as FR and dynamic stretching (DS) [10, 18, 27]. Lim and Park [15] and Nakamura et al. [21] reported no benefits of VFR in jump performance, nor with FR, and Tsai et al. [13] found significant improvements with FR in jump performance but not with VFR. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant effects between pre-and post-intervention with VFR (SMD = 0.14 [95% CI − 0.022 to 0.307]; p = 0.101; I2 = 1.08%) on jump performance. The relative weight of each study in the analysis varied between 13.85 and 36.84% (indicated by the size of the plotted box in Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effects of vibration foam roller intervention on jump performance in healthy adults. Values shown are effects sizes (standard mean differences) with 95% confidence intervals. The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study. The black diamond reflects the overall result

Full size image

Agility

Three studies analyzed agility with the Figure-of-8 Hop test [31], the Edgren Side Step test [30] or the FITLIGHT test [18]. Agility was analyzed before and after an intervention with VFR. Lyu et al. [31] found a significant increase in agility after VFR with similar effects with and without dynamic contraction. Hsu et al. [30] reported an increase in agility after VFR with DS but similar to DS with FR without vibration and Lin et al. [18] showed an increase of the agility after VFR with DS but similar to the increase only with DS. For agility, the meta-analysis was not conducted due to the small number of studies analyzing this variable.

Isokinetic Strength

Four studies analyzed the isokinetic strength, all of them with an isokinetic dynamometer. Lee et al. [14] and Chen et al. [19] tested the strength of the quadriceps and hamstrings with the dynamometer, assessing the knee joint, and Lyu et al. [31] and Nakamura et al. [21] performed the test on the ankle, analyzing the strength of the dorsal and plantar flexors. Lee et al. [14] found an increase in the strength of the quadriceps and hamstrings after VFR intervention, but similar to FR. Lyu et al. [31] reported an increase in the isokinetic strength of the ankle after VFR with DS and only after DS, with no significant differences between the two interventions, Nakamura et al. [21] reported no effects of VFR on strength and Chen et al. [19] analyzed the isokinetic strength of quadriceps and hamstrings but their design did not provide pre and post-test measurements so the meta-analysis could not be performed. The results of the meta-analysis reported no significant effects between pre-and post-intervention with VFR (SMD = 0.16 [95% CI − 0.041 to 0.367]; p = 0.117; I2 = 9.7%) on isokinetic strength performance. The relative weight of each study in the analysis varied between 15.3 and 21.39% (indicated by the size of the plotted box in Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Effects of vibration foam roller intervention on isokinetic strength in healthy adults. Values shown are effects sizes (standard mean differences) with 95% confidence intervals. The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study. The black diamond reflects the overall result. a: Strength in quadriceps; b: strength in hamstrings; c: strength in plantar flexors; d: strength in dorsal flexors

Full size image

Recovery

The effects of VFR on recovery have been analyzed with different variables. Lai et al. [9] assessed the blood flow before and after an intervention with VFR and reported an increase of this variable, but similar to after FR. Chen et al. [19] analyzed the fatigue after training and recovery with VFR and DS, showing greater improvements in decreasing fatigue with this method in comparison with DS and SS combined with DS. Romero-Moraleda et al. [10] analyzed recovery in terms of perceived pain, and after an intervention with VFR this variable decreased significantly and more than with FR intervention. Similar to a previous review in this topic [7], the heterogeneity of the recovery variables made data consolidation and meta-analysis invalid.

Discussion

This systematic review with meta-analysis presents a summary of the evidence available about the effects of VFR on jump performance, strength, agility and recovery. Results seem to indicate that short interventions with VFR do not have significant effects on jump performance and isokinetic strength. Recovery after exercise appears to improve with VFR interventions, in terms of pain, fatigue and blood flow, and agility seems to be enhanced with VFR interventions, but a meta-analysis of these variables was not conducted due to the heterogeneity of the measurements and the small number of investigations in these topics.

Foam rollers have been demonstrated to influence on the tissues involved, [2, 11]. With this intervention, the tissues are rolled and compressed and their mechanoreceptors are stimulated due to the pressure and the movement, producing changes in muscle and myofascial thixotropy, fascial hydration and blood flow [7, 11, 29,30,31]. All of these effects have been demonstrated to influence the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems by modulating the global pain systems and influencing the muscle tone and the stiffness [32, 33]. Recently, vibration has been added to the FR with the purpose of increasing the stimulation of the mechanoreceptors and enhancing the response of the tissues involved [8, 16, 20, 34]. Vibration was supposed to produce a more in-depth stimulation of the muscle and myofascia due to a greater contribution of the mechanoreceptors, specifically the interstitial type I and II receptors, which respond to a sustained pressure and modulate the sympathetic and parasympathetic activity [11, 20]. Nevertheless, the influence of this in-depth stimulation on variables of performance and recovery remains unclear.

Regarding jump performance, this review and meta-analysis showed no significant effects of VFR (Fig. 2). The modulation of the stiffness and the changes in the mechanical properties of the muscles rolled could produce an increase of the co-activation and contraction of the muscles involved, differently from interventions only with vibration [12]. Moreover, most investigations included in this systematic review and meta-analysis performed the intervention with VFR in all areas of the lower limb (anterior and posterior thigh and calf) and the low back, showing greater effects in comparison with interventions in one muscle, which could change the mechanical properties of the muscle [13, 18, 27]. A recent systematic review concluded the longer time spent with FR, the longer effects seemed to last [7], but to date no studies have assessed the effects of long-lasting interventions with FR on several muscles in comparison with shorter interventions.

Regarding agility, it seems to increase after interventions with VFR. Theoretically, the stimulation of the proprioceptors with VFR could increase the velocity of contraction and response [35, 36]. However, agility is influenced by the tone and the stiffness of the muscles involved [30, 39] and VFR has been shown to decrease these [3, 6, 37], which could be detrimental to agility test performance and could explain the conflicting results.

Conversely, the results of the meta-analysis show there is not enough evidence to assert that VFR has positive effects on isokinetic strength. Changes in tissue thixotropy, tone and stiffness could influence these results, but in addition the lower muscle activation reached with VFR could decrease the strength [8, 35, 36]. Previous studies with FR demonstrated that the strength could decrease after those interventions but maintaining the performance, due to the modulation of the tone and the changes in the mechanical properties of the muscles [32, 38, 39], but there is little evidence to support this theory with VFR.

The heterogeneity of the variables measured made the meta-analysis not possible for recovery. However, the results of the studies appear to support the idea that VFR enhances recovery after exercise, since the blood flow increased, and the perceived fatigue and pain decreased with VFR interventions. Specifically, the increase of blood flow is one of the main physiological explanations for the effects of VFR [29,30,31, 40] since it has been demonstrated to contribute to a better environment for muscle recovery, removing the inflammatory substances after exercise [10, 30, 41]. This increase of blood flow added to the changes in mechanical and thixotropic properties of the muscles involved and the modulation of the global pain system could explain the decrease of pain and fatigue reported [10, 19]. Similar to previous studies with FR [20, 37, 42, 43], the pressure applied during the intervention with VFR appears to stimulate and modulate the autonomic nervous system, influencing pain and fatigue perceived. However, there is not enough evidence to state that vibration increases these benefits.

The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence about the effects of VFR on performance and recovery; however, several limitations should be considered. First, the studies included contained limited sample sizes and had poor methodological quality according to the PEDro scale, especially with respect to blinding and concealment of allocation, probably due to the characteristics of the intervention with VFR  [44,45,46,47,48,49]. Second, there is little evidence analyzing the effects of VFR on performance and recovery, so the meta-analysis was conducted with few studies. Third, the lack of consistency in the duration of the interventions, the density of the devices and the frequency used for the vibration may explain the different findings. Future research should consider these limitations and perform randomized trials with higher levels of methodological quality, bigger sample sizes and similar interventions to provide more consistent results. Moreover, although there is some evidence to support the underlying physiological effects of VFR, they remain unclear and future research should explore this further.

Conclusion

This systematic review with meta-analysis shows that VFR has a great potential to improve jump performance, agility, strength and recovery, but no significant results were found in these variables. Although the underlying physiological effects of VFR are not fully understood, the potential of this method invites wider research in this field.

Availability of Data and Materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Freiwald J, Baumgart C, Kühnemann M, Hoppe MW. Foam-rolling in sport and therapy—potential benefits and risks. Sports Orthop Traumatol. 2016;32(3):258–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthtr.2016.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Freiwald J, Baumgart C, Kühnemann M, Hoppe MW. Foam-rolling in sport and therapy—potential benefits and risks. Sports Orthop Traumatol. 2016;32(3):267–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthtr.2016.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilke J, Müller A-L, Giesche F, Power G, Ahmedi H, Behm DG. Acute effects of foam rolling on range of motion in healthy adults: a systematic review with multilevel meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(2):387–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01205-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wiewelhove T, Döweling A, Schneider C, et al. A meta-analysis of the effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery. Front Physiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00376.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Beardsley C, Škarabot J. Effects of self-myofascial release: a systematic review. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19(4):747–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Skinner B, Moss R, Hammond L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of foam rolling on range of motion, recovery and markers of athletic performance. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24(3):105–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hughes GA, Ramer LM. Duration of myofascial rolling for optimal recovery, range of motion, and performance: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019;14(6):845–59. https://doi.org/10.26603/ijspt20190845.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Reiner MM, Glashüttner C, Bernsteiner D, et al. A comparison of foam rolling and vibration foam rolling on the quadriceps muscle function and mechanical properties. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2021;121(5):1461–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04619-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai Y-H, Wang A-Y, Yang C-C, Guo L-Y. The recovery benefit on skin blood flow using vibrating foam rollers for postexercise muscle fatigue in runners. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):9118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239118.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Romero-Moraleda B, González-García J, Cuéllar-Rayo Á, Balsalobre-Fernández C, Muñoz-García D, Morencos E. Effects of vibration and non-vibration foam rolling on recovery after exercise with induced muscle damage. J Sports Sci Med. 2019;18(1):172–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Behm DG, Wilke J. Do self-myofascial release devices release myofascia? Rolling mechanisms: a narrative review. Sports Med. 2019;49(8):1173–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01149-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lamont HS, Cramer JT, Bemben DA, Shehab RL, Anderson MA, Bemben MG. The acute effect of whole-body low-frequency vibration on countermovement vertical jump performance in college-aged men. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(12):3433–42. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c1ff7e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsai W-C, Chen Z-R. The acute effect of foam rolling and vibration foam rolling on drop jump performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(7):3489. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073489.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee C-L, Chu I-H, Lyu B-J, Chang W-D, Chang N-J. Comparison of vibration rolling, nonvibration rolling, and static stretching as a warm-up exercise on flexibility, joint proprioception, muscle strength, and balance in young adults. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(22):2575–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1469848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lim J-H, Park C-B. The immediate effects of foam roller with vibration on hamstring flexibility and jump performance in healthy adults. J Exerc Rehabil. 2019;15(1):50–4. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1836560.280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. de Benito AM, Valldecabres R, Ceca D, Richards J, Igual JB, Pablos A. Effect of vibration vs non-vibration foam rolling techniques on flexibility, dynamic balance and perceived joint stability after fatigue. PeerJ. 2019;7: e8000. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8000.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. García-Gutiérrez MT, Guillén-Rogel P, Cochrane DJ, Marín PJ. Cross transfer acute effects of foam rolling with vibration on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2018;18(2):262–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin W-C, Lee C-L, Chang N-J. Acute effects of dynamic stretching followed by vibration foam rolling on sports performance of badminton athletes. J Sports Sci Med. 2020;19(2):420–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen C-H, Chiu C-H, Tseng W-C, et al. Acute effects of combining dynamic stretching and vibration foam rolling warm-up on lower-limb muscle performance and functions in female handball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003998.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheatham SW, Stull KR, Kolber MJ. Comparison of a vibration roller and a nonvibration roller intervention on knee range of motion and pressure pain threshold: a randomized controlled trial. J Sport Rehabil. 2019;28(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2017-0164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakamura M, Sato S, Kiyono R, et al. Comparison between foam rolling with and without vibration on passive and active plantar flexor muscle properties. J Strength Cond Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Behm DG, Alizadeh S, Hadjizadeh Anvar S, et al. Foam rolling prescription: a clinical commentary. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(11):3301–8. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000003765.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hendricks S, Hill H, den Hollander S, Lombard W, Parker R. Effects of foam rolling on performance and recovery: a systematic review of the literature to guide practitioners on the use of foam rolling. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24(2):151–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2019.10.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Page MJ, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, et al. The PRISMA statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wager E, Wiffen PJ. Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. JEBM. 2011;4(2):130–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01122.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol version 6.2. Cochrane; 2021. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 10 May 2021.

  27. de Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70043-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Han S, Lee Y, Lee D. The influence of the vibration form roller exercise on the pains in the muscles around the hip joint and the joint performance. J Phys Ther Sci. 2017;29(10):1844–7. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.29.1844.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsu F-Y, Tsai K-L, Lee C-L, Chang W-D, Chang N-J. Effects of dynamic stretching combined with static stretching, foam rolling, or vibration rolling as a warm-up exercise on athletic performance in elite table tennis players. J Sport Rehab. 2020;30(2):198–205. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2019-0442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lyu B-J, Lee C-L, Chang W-D, Chang N-J. Effects of vibration rolling with and without dynamic muscle contraction on ankle range of motion, proprioception, muscle strength and agility in young adults: a crossover study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1):354. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010354.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Okamoto T, Masuhara M, Ikuta K. Acute effects of self-myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial function. J Strength Cond Res. 2014;28(1):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31829480f5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hotfiel T, Swoboda B, Krinner S, et al. Acute effects of lateral thigh foam rolling on arterial tissue perfusion determined by spectral doppler and power doppler ultrasound. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(4):893–900. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000001641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ketelhut S, Möhle M, Hottenrott K. Acute effects of self-myofascial release using a foam roller on arterial stiffness in healthy young adults. Artery Res. 2020;26(4):219–22. https://doi.org/10.2991/artres.k.200615.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nakamura M, Onuma R, Kiyono R, et al. The acute and prolonged effects of different durations of foam rolling on range of motion, muscle stiffness, and muscle strength. J Sports Sci Med. 2021;20:62–8. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2021.62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. García-Sillero M, Benítez-Porres J, García-Romero J, Bonilla DA, Petro JL, Vargas-Molina S. Comparison of interventional strategies to improve recovery after eccentric exercise-induced muscle fatigue. Int J Enviro Res Public Health. 2021;18(2):647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ruggieri RM, Coburn JW, Galpin AJ, Costa PB. Effects of a vibrating foam roller on ipsilateral and contralateral neuromuscular function and the hamstrings-to-quadriceps ratios. Int J Exerc Sci. 2021;14(1):304–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bradbury-Squires DJ, Noftall JC, Sullivan KM, Behm DG, Power KE, Button DC. Roller-massager application to the quadriceps and knee-joint range of motion and neuromuscular efficiency during a lunge. J Athlet Train. 2015;50(2):133–40. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-49.5.03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kaya S, Cug M, Behm DG. Foam rolling during a simulated half-time attenuates subsequent soccer-specific performance decrements. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021;26:193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.12.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(9):919–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410500457109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ajimsha MS, Al-Mudahka NR, Al-Madzhar JA. Effectiveness of myofascial release: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19(1):102–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2014.06.001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Su H, Chang N-J, Wu W-L, Guo L-Y, Chu I-H. Acute effects of foam rolling, static stretching, and dynamic stretching during warm-ups on muscular flexibility and strength in young adults. J Sport Rehab. 2017;26(6):469–77. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2016-0102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schroeder J, Lueders L, Schmidt M, Braumann K-M, Hollander K. Foam rolling effects on soft tissue tone, elasticity and stiffness in the time course of recovery after weight training. Sports Orthop Traumatol. 2019;35(2):171–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orthtr.2018.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Adamczyk JG, Gryko K, Boguszewski D. Does the type of foam roller influence the recovery rate, thermal response and DOMS prevention? PlosOne. 2020;15(6): e0235195. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235195.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Nakamura M, Yasaka K, Kiyono R, et al. The acute effect of foam rolling on eccentrically-induced muscle damage. Int J Enviro Res Public Health. 2021;18(1):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hjert CS, Wright CJ. The effects of self-myofascial release foam rolling on muscle soreness or pain after experiencing delayed onset muscle soreness: a critically appraised topic. IJATT. 2020;25(6):294–8. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2019-0078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cheatham SW, Stull KR. Roller massage: difference in knee joint range of motion and pain perception among experienced and nonexperienced individuals after following a prescribed program. J Sport Rehab. 2020;29(2):148–55. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2018-0261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Elkins M. Concealed allocation in randomised trials. J Physiother. 2013;59(2):134–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70174-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C, Elkins MR. Reported quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. REMOSS Research Group, Facultade de Ciencias da Educación e do Deporte, Universidade de Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain

    Alejandra Alonso-Calvete, Miguel Lorenzo-Martínez, Alexis Padrón-Cabo, Alexandra Pérez-Ferreirós, Anton Kalén & Ezequiel Rey

  2. Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Faculty of Sports Sciences and Physical Education, Campus Bastiagueiro, University of A Coruña, 15071, A Coruña, Spain

    Alexis Padrón-Cabo

  3. CLINURSID Research Group, Psychiatry, Radiology, Public Health, Nursing and Medicine Department, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Cristian Abelairas-Gómez

  4. Faculty of Education Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Cristian Abelairas-Gómez

  5. Simulation and Intensive Care Unit of Santiago (SICRUS) Reseach Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela-CHUS, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Cristian Abelairas-Gómez

  6. School of Informatics, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden

    Anton Kalén

Authors
  1. Alejandra Alonso-Calvete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel Lorenzo-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexis Padrón-Cabo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandra Pérez-Ferreirós
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anton Kalén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cristian Abelairas-Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ezequiel Rey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study. Idea for the review and meta-analysis: AAC, MLM, APC, AK, APF. Literature search and data analysis: AAC, APC, MLM. Draft and review of the work: AAC, CAG, ER. All authors revised critically the manuscript and approved the final version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexis Padrón-Cabo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Human and Animal Rights

This research did not involve human or animal participants.

Informed Consent

The informed consent was not required for this study.

Competing interests

Alejandra Alonso-Calvete, Miguel Lorenzo-Martínez, Alexis Padrón-Cabo, Alexandra Pérez-Ferreirós, Anton Kalén, Cristian Abelairas-Gómez and Ezequiel Rey declare that they have no competing interests relevant to the content of this review.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alonso-Calvete, A., Lorenzo-Martínez, M., Padrón-Cabo, A. et al. Does Vibration Foam Roller Influence Performance and Recovery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med - Open 8, 32 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00421-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00421-2

Keywords