Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of evidence of studies with asymptomatic participants

From: The efficacy of muscle energy techniques in symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects: a systematic review

Authors

Sample size (n)

Sessions (n)

Anatomical administration of MET

Procedure

Outcome

Additional information

Comparison with other technique

 

Ballantyne et al. [22]

40

1

Hamstring

5 s contraction at 75% of max – 3 s relaxation -at a point of discomfort – 4 contractions

Increased Rom

n/a

n/a

 

Burns et al. [33]

18

1

Cervical spine

3 to 5 s contraction at 0.5 kg of pressure - 3 to 5 s relaxation – to a new barrier of motion – 2 to 4 contractions

Increased Rom with MET – Decreased with Sham

n/a

With Sham treatment (stretching for 3 to 5 s – return to neutral position - for 3 stretches)

 

Fryer et al. [15]

52

1

Atlanto-axial joint

5 s: 5 s contraction at the first resistance point – 5 s relaxation – 3 times

20s: 20 s contraction at the first resistance point – 5 s relaxation – 3 contractions

Increased Rom in the MET groups. With the 5 s group showing the gretest increase.

The increase was greater in the direction of restriction compared to the direction of no restriction

Comparison of a 5 duration contraction with a 20 duration contraction + Sham therapy and control group.

 

Fryer et al. [34]

12

1

L5/S1 segment bilaterally

5 s contraction at a first tissue tension point - relaxation – new barrier contractions – 3 contractions

Decreased H-reflex and silent period.

MET produces decreased motor excitability in the motor cortex and spinal cord.

Control Group

 

Hamilton. et al. [16]

90

1

Subocciptal region

3 to 5 s contraction – 5 s relaxation – 3 contractions

Pressure pain thresholds increased in the MET compared to the sham but not HVLA procedure

n/a

Comparison with HVLA and Sham treatment

 

Laudner et at. [36]

39

12

Pectoralis Minor

3 s stretch – 5 s contraction at 25% of max force – 4 contractions – no rest

Increased pectoralis length and decreased forward scapular position.

No increase of scapular upward rotation.

n/a

 

Lenehan et al. [21]

59

1

Thoracic spine

5 s contraction at the first rotational barrier – no rest – new rotational barrier - four repetitions

Increased Trunk ROM

Restricted direction of treatment increased rotation more than non-restricted rotation

Comparison with control group.

 

Moore et al. [37]

61

1

Glenohumeral Joint

5 s contraction at 25% max force - the participant then internally rotated the arm for 30-s and an active assisted

stretch was applied - 3 contractions

Increased horizontal adduction and internal rotation ROM

n/a

Control group

 

Schenk et al. [41]

18

7

Cervical region

5 s contraction – 3 s relaxation – increase of direction of limitation – 4 contractions

Increased Rom in all six ranges of motion of the cervical region.

n/a

Control group

 

Schenk et al. [18]

26

8

Lumbar region

Greenman Protocol.

Increased extension of the Lumbar Spine

No increase of ROM in control group

Control group

 

Shadmehr et al. [20]

30

10

Knee Rom

Hamstrings

10s contraction at 50% max force – 10s relaxation – greater resistance point – 3 contractions

Improvement of knee extension.

MET had an early effect on improving muscle’s flexibility compared with the passive stretch.

Passive stretch

Smith et al. [19]

40

2

Hamstrings

Chaitow MET: 7–10s contraction at 40% max force – 2-3 s relaxation – 30 s stretch to the palpated and/or tolerance to stretch – 3 contractions.

Greenman MET: 7–10s contraction at 40% max force – 2-3 s relaxation – leg placed at a new barrier – 4 contractions.

Both Greenman and Chaitow approaches produced increases of active knee extension immediately after intervention.

No statistical differences between the two techniques.

Chaitow vs. Greenman protocol

 
 

Total 485

Mean: 3.8