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 |