Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparison of conservative interventions for increasing ankle joint dorsiflexion range of motion

From: Interventions for increasing ankle joint dorsiflexion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study ID Intervention(s) Sample size Follow-up period Measurement method SMD (95% CI)*
STRETCHING
Bohannon 1994 [31] A: Control A: 18 Same day measures taken after 3 sets of stretching Digital images Insufficient data
B: Stretch B: 18
Dinh 2011 [1] A: WB stretch A: 14 3 weeks Goniometer (WB) B vs A
B: NWB stretch B: 14 Left: -0.33 (−1.08 to 0.42)
Right: 0.26 (−0.49 to 1)
     Goniometer (NWB) B vs A
Left: 0.16 (−0.88 to 0.9)
Right: 0.18 (−0.56 to 0.93)
Christiansen 2008 [12] A: Control A: 20 8 weeks Goniometer (NWB) B vs A: 0.71 (0.07 to 1.35)
B: Stretch B: 20
Etnyre 1986 [15] A: Static stretch A: 12 3 sessions Goniometer (active assist) B vs A: -0.04 (−0.85 to 0.76)
B: Contract-relax PNF stretch B: 12
C: 12 C vs A: 1.90 (0.92 to 2.88 )
C: Contract-relax-agonist-contract PNF stretch
Gajdosik 2005 [5] A: Control A: 9 8 weeks Electro-goniometer B vs A: 0.69 (−0.24 to 1.62)
B: WB stretch B: 10
Gajdosik 2007 [18] A: Control A: 4 6 weeks Electro-goniometer B vs A: 0.91 (−0.44 to 2.25)
B: WB stretch B: 6
Johanson 2009 [3] A: Control A: 8 3 weeks Goniometer B vs A
B: WB stretch B: 8 Left: 1.19 (0.11 to 2.26)
Right: 0.55 (−0.45 to 1.55)
Kasser 2009 [19] A: Control A: 9 6 weeks Universal goniometer Insufficient Data
B: WB stretch B: 9
Knight 2001 [21] A: Control A: 18 6 weeks Goniometer (passive ROM) B vs A: 0.71 (0.05 to 1.38)
B: Static Stretch B: 19
Goniometer (active ROM) B vs A: 0.7 (0.03 to 1.36)
Peres 2002 [23] A: Control A: 8 3 weeks Digital inclinometer B vs A: 0.85 (−0.10 to 1.81)
B: Stretch B: 11
Pratt 2003 [32] A: Control A: 12 3 days Digital images Insufficient data
B: Stretch B: 12
Rees 2007 [25] A: Control A: 10 4 weeks Goniometer B vs A
B: PNF stretch B: 10 Left: 0.82 (−0.1 to 1.74)
Right: 0.84 (−0.08 to 1.76)
Youdas 2003 [29] A: Control A: 24 6 weeks Goniometer (active assist) B vs A: 0.45 (−0.14 to 1.04)
B: 30 sec stretch B: 22
C: 1 minute stretch C: 22 C vs A: 0.24 (−0.34 to 0.83)
D: 2 minute stretch D: 21
D vs A: 0.46 (−0.14 to 1.05)
STRETCHING COMBINED WITH OTHER INTERVENTIONS
Draper 1998 [14] A: Stretch A: 20 10 sessions Inclinometer B vs A: 0 (−0.62 to 0.62)
B: Ultrasound + Stretch B: 20
Kasser 2009 [19] A: WB stretch A: 9 6 weeks Universal goniometer Insufficient data
C: Tibialis anterior strengthening C: 9
Knight 2001 [21] A: Control A: 18 6 weeks Goniometer (passive ROM) C vs A: 0.70 (0.04 to 1.37)
C: Heel raise + static stretch C: 19
D: 21 D vs A: 0.84 (0.18 to 1.50)
D: Superficial moist heat + static stretch E: 20
E vs A: 0.95 (0.27 to 1.62)
E: Ultrasound + static stretch
     Goniometer (active ROM) C vs A: 0.77 (0.10 to 1.44)
D vs A: 0.65 (0 to 1.30)
E vs A: 0.91 (0.24 to 1.58)
McNair 1996 [22] A: WB soleus stretch A: 24 3 sessions Electro-goniometer B vs A: 0.05 (−0.52 to 0.62)
B: Aerobic exercise B: 24
Peres 2002 [23] A: Control A: 8 3 weeks Digital Inclinometer C vs A: 1.12 (0.05 to 2.18)
C: Stretch + C: 8
Diathermy D: 9 D vs A: 1.16 (0.12 to 2.20)
D: Stretch + Diathermy + Ice
Zakas 2006 [30] A: Warm up A:18 3 sessions Flexometer B vs A: 0.72 (0.04 to 1.39)
B: Stretch B: 18
C: Warm up + stretch C: 18 C vs A: 0.87 (0.18 to 1.55)
MANUAL THERAPY
Fryer 2002 [16] A: Control A: 41 Immediate Dynamometer (NWB) B vs A: 0 (−0.44 to 0.44)
B: Manipulation B: 40
De Souza 2008 [39] A: Control A: 25 Immediate Biplane goniometer B vs A: 0.19 (−0.37 to 0.75)
B: Mobilisation B: 25
SOLEAL TRIGGER POINT THERAPY
Grieve 2011 [2] A: Control A: 10 Immediate Goniometer (NWB assisted) B vs A: 0.72 (−0.18 to 1.63)
  B: Soleal trigger point therapy B: 10    
  1. Abbreviations: WB weight bearing, NWB non-weight bearing.
  2. *SMDs (95% CIs) were calculated between groups at the longest period of follow-up.