Table 1 Summary of the characteristics of the studies and results of the intervention
From: Does Vibration Foam Roller Influence Performance and Recovery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Study | Study population | Muscles involved | Intervention | Frequency/time | Outcome | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chen et al. [19] | Handball players (female = 10) 21 ± 1 years | Quadriceps and hamstrings | Crossover 1: SS + DS 2: DS 3: DS + VFR | 45 Hz/8 min | Isokinetic strength and fatigue recovery (Thorstensson test) | No differences in strength Fatigue decreases after DS + VFR |
Hsu et al. [30] | 23 elite table tennis players (female = 9; male = 14) 20.6 ± 0.8 years | Gastrocnemius, quadriceps, hamstrings, low back, and rotator cuff | Crossover 1: DS + SS 2: DS + FR 3: DS + VFR | 33 Hz/1 min | Jump performance (Board jump test) and agility (Edgren Side Step Test) | DS + FR and DS + VFR increase agility similarly Jump performance increase similarly with all interventions |
Lai et al. [9] | 23 runners (female = 11; male = 12) 26.4 ± 6.5 years | Gastrocnemius | Crossover 1: FR 2: VFR | 20–40 Hz/6 min | Recovery (blood flow) | Blood flow increases similarly with both methods |
Lim et al. [15] | 20 healthy subjects (female = 6; male = 14) 20.97 ± 1.56 years | Hamstrings | Randomized trial 1: FR 2: VFR | 32 Hz/10 min | Jump performance (Vertical jump test) | No differences in jump performance with any intervention |
Lin et al. [18] | 40 badminton players (female = 15; male = 25) 21.4 ± 1.5 years | Gastrocnemius, hamstrings, quadriceps, rotator cuff and low back | Randomized trial 1: DS 2: DS + VFR | 28 Hz/20 s | Jump performance (CMJ) and agility (FITLIGHT test) | Jump performance and agility improve similarly with both interventions |
Romero-Moraleda et al. [10] | 38 healthy subjects (female = 6; male = 32) 22.2 ± 3.2 years | Vastus lateralis, vastus medialis and rectus femoris | Randomized trial 1: FR 2: VFR | 18 Hz/5 min | Recovery (PPT and VAS) and jump performance (CMJ) | Pain perception decreases more with VFR than with FR. Both improved similarly PPT and jump performance |
Tsai et al. [13] | Volleyball players (male = 16) 21.5 ± 1.15 years | Quadriceps, gluteus, biceps femoris, tibialis anterioris, gastrocnemius, iliotibial band and plantar fascia | Crossover 1: FR 2: VFR 3: rest | 45 Hz/15 min | Jump performance (Drop jump test) | FR increase jump performance and VFR does not increase jump performance |
Lyu et al. [31] | Healthy subjects (male = 20) 21 ± 1.01 years | Gastrocnemius | Crossover 1: VFR 2: VFR + DC 3: SS | 28 Hz/3 min | Isokinetic muscle strength and agility (figure-of-8 hop test) | VFR and VFR + DC increase similarly muscle strength and agility |
Lee et al. [14] | Healthy subjects (male = 30) 20.4 ± 1.2 years | Quadriceps and hamstrings | Crossover 1:VFR 2: FR 3: SS | 28 Hz/6 min | Isokinetic muscle strength | VFR increase isokinetic strength in quadriceps and hamstrings more than SS but similar to FR |
Nakamura et al. [21] | Healthy subjects (16 = male) 21.7 ± 1.3 years | Plantar flexors | Crossover 1: VFR 2: FR 3: rest | 48 Hz/4 min | Isokinetic strength and jump performance (Drop jump test) | VFR does not increase isokinetic strength or jump performance |