











































MANUSCRIPT TYPE


VALIDATION CASE STUDY 

 

3 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 
 

Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted 
Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study  
Sarah Jakubek, MA, ATC*; Elena Robinson, DAT, LAT, ATC;† Annette D. Monk, DAT, LAT, ATC‡;  
*Trinity International University, Deerfield, IL;†University of Nebraska Kearney, Kearney, NE; ‡Eastern Kentucky University, 
Richmond, KY  

 
ABSTRACT 
The purpose of this case validation study was to examine the effects of Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) on the 
ankle. The patient population consisted of nine participants (2 females, 7 males, age = 16± 2 years) from a suburban high school 
in Illinois. Each patient completed an IASTM treatment program, incorporating the Graston Technique (GT). The program was 
completed over a three-week period with 2 sessions occurring each week, for a total of 6 sessions. Data collection of ankle 
dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) occurred after the completion of the GT. This was assessed by performing the weight-bearing 
lunge test at the start and end of each treatment day. Results demonstrated that ankle DFROM did improve by the last session. The 
findings from this case validation study suggest that the use of GT is an effective intervention for increasing joint DFROM.  
 
Key Phrases 
Manual techniques, clinician-rated outcomes, secondary schools patient population 
 
Correspondence 
Sarah Jakubek, MA, ATC, International University, Department of Health Sciences Deerfield, IL, 60015.  
E-mail: sjakubek3124@gmail.com 
 
Full Citation 
Jakubek S, Robinson E, Monk AD. Improving ankle range of motion with the use of instrument assisted soft tissue 
mobilization: A validation case study. Clin Pract Athl Train. 2022;5(2): 3-10. https://doi.org/10.31622/2022/0005.02.2.      
 
Submitted: May 13, 2021 Accepted: March 24, 2022. 

 
ARTICLE CITATION AND SUMMARY 

Seffrin CB, Cattano NM, Reed MA, Gardiner-Shires AM. Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization: A 
systematic review and effect-size analysis. J. Athl. Train. 2019;54(7):808-821. Doi:10.4085/1062-6050-
481-17 

INTRODUCTION 

We selected a systemic review1 regarding the use of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM). The 
authors completed a literature search from the years 2000 through 2016, using the following databases: 
Academic Search Premier, Alt Healthwatch, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, NLM PubMed, Physical 
Education Index, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and the Web of Science. The studies were evaluated and included if 
they met the following criteria: (1) the study was a randomized controlled trial, (2) range of motion (ROM), 
pain, strength, or patient-reported function was measured pre-intervention and post-intervention, (3) studies 
were written in English, (4) human patients were assessed, and (5) IASTM was compared with a control group 
(no IASTM). Thirteen of the initial 1,279 studies were included in the review and of these, 6 examined the 
upper extremities, 6 examined the lower extremities and 1 examined the thoracic spine. Six studies assessed 
outcomes in uninjured patients and the remaining studies assessed outcomes in injured patients. The review 
concluded that IASTM improves ROM in uninjured individuals as well as pain and patient-reported function 
for certain injuries.  

  

mailto:sjakubek3124@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.31622/2022/0005.02.2


Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

4 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

OBJECTIVE  

The purpose of the validation case study was to examine whether the use of the Graston Technique (GT) 
improves ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) in secondary school (grades 9-12) participants from 
a variety of athletic programs. 

PATIENT POPULATION  

The setting was a secondary school in suburban Illinois. Female and male athletes from football, volleyball, 
and basketball programs were recruited to participate. Nine participants (2 females, 7 males, age = 16± 
2 years) completed the GT treatment. Participants were included in the treatment program if they had 10 
cm or less of ankle DFROM while performing the weight-bearing lunge test (WBLT) and were in a school 
sponsored athletic program. Less than 10 cm of DFROM while performing the WBLT has been cited as an 
indicator of ankle equinus.2 Participants were excluded from the treatment program if their DFROM was 
greater than 10 cm.2  Participants were also asked if they had any previous history of ankle injuries. If the 
ankle injury was on the right ankle they were excluded from the study (Figure 1). However, if the ankle injury 
was on the left ankle and their right ankle DFROM was less than 10 cm while performing the WBLT, they 
were included in the study.  

 

Figure 1. Participant Flow Chart 

  

Athlete had a previous 
right ankle injury 

 

Yes                        No 
Athlete was 
excluded 
from study 

N=1 

Athlete was 
included in study 

and began 
intervention  

N=9 

Females 
N=2 

Males 
N=8 

Secondary 
School athlete 
approached 

for study  
N= 25 

Weight-bearing lunge 
test < 10cm included in 

study  
N=10 

Weight-bearing 
lunge test > 10cm 

excluded from 
study  
N=15 



Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

5 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

INTERVENTION 

In this study, GT was performed by the primary investigator, who was certified in the technique, while being 
supervised by the head athletic trainer. The treatment protocol was based on previous work of GT on chronic 
ankle instability to increase ankle DFROM.3 This program was initiated in the middle of the fall sports season 
and consisted of a 3-week phase for each participant. The 3-week phase required participants to complete 
6 sessions, twice per week for approximately 10 minutes total per session. There was a minimum of 48 hours 
between each session of GT. Participants received treatment one hour before the start of their athletic 
practice time. This gave each participant enough time to receive treatment before heading to practice.  

Before the start of each treatment session, each participant performed the WBLT4 for ankle DFROM with all 
measurements taken on the right ankle. For this study, the right leg was chosen because all participants were 
right leg dominant and was used most often as their leading or kicking foot within the participants associated 
sports. Documentation of their dominant leg was asked before measurements. All measurement were taken 
using a tape measurer in centimeters. The tape measurer in this study acted as our measuring tool instead of 
a goniometer. Research shows that using either a goniometer or tape measure when measuring ankle DRFOM 
are both reliable tools.4 The WBLT was performed in a kneeling position with the heel in contact with the 
ground, the knee in line with the second toe. The great toe was placed at 10 cm away from the wall (Figure 
2). Participants were asked to lunge forward touching their knee to the wall, without removing their heel 
from the ground. If the participants were not able to touch, their knee to the wall or the heel was removed 
from the ground, their foot was moved forward 1 cm until the participant was able to touch the wall with 
their knee without lifting their heel from the ground. This measurement was then recorded. The participants 
then completed a warmup on a stationary bike for five minutes before the GT was applied. It is 
recommended that participants either use a modality or perform an active warm-up prior to GT 
administration.5 The GT was then performed at four different locations, all on the right ankle, for a total of 
8 minutes (2 minutes each site)1 (Table 1). The four locations were the full length of the Achilles tendon, the 
gastrocnemius/soleus, the dorsum of the foot, the fibularis longus and the flexor digitorum longus. Three GT 
instruments were selected (GT2, GT3, GT4) to treat the restricted areas in the fascia, muscle, tendon, or 
ligaments both in a prone position (Figures 3, 4) and in a supine position (Figures 5, 6). Restrictions were 
acknowledged as soft tissue lesions and fascial restrictions.14 Instruments GT2 and GT4 were used primarily 
to sweep and fan each specific location, whereas GT3 was used for performing fanning, brushing, and j-
stroke when a restricted area was found.3 The WBLT4 was then re-assessed at the end of each treatment 
session.   

Table 1. Graston Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization 
Graston Instruments Patient Position Strokes And Anatomical Area 
GT 4, knob of GT 2 and GT 3 
(Figure 3,4) 

Prone, foot over end of table Sweep plantar fascia and 
gastrocnemius/ soleus 

GT 4, knob of GT 2 and GT 3 
(Figure 5, 6) 

Supine, foot over end of table 
 

Sweep dorsum of foot and 
anterior tibialis 

Frame medial and lateral 
malleoli 

 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS  

A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in each 
ankle DFROM measure over time and weeks. Post hoc comparisons were completed using paired samples t-



Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

6 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

test to examine pairwise differences within each week and from baseline through week 3. Hedges’ g effect 
size (ESs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for our post-hoc comparisons. A positive ES 
indicated an increase in ankle DFROM after the application of GT while a negative ES indicated a decrease 
in ankle DFROM. A weak ES is considered < .40, while a moderate ES is .41 to .69.8 A strong ES is considered 
> .59.8 Significance level for all analyses was set at p ≤ .05. Statistical analysis was completed using SPSS 
(version 27, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL), and Excel 2016 (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA).  

  

Figure 2. Weight-Bearing Lung Test Measurement Figure 3. GT2 Achilles Tendon and Fibula 

Figure 4. GT3 Gastrocnemius/Soleus and Achilles tendon Figure 5. GT4 Anterior tibialis and dorsum of the foot 

Figure 6. GT2 Medial and Lateral Malleoli-
Knob of GT2 



Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

7 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

MAIN FINDINGS  

During the three-week intervention, no injuries were sustained and there were no changes in the number of 
participants. A significant time main effect was found for right ankle DFROM (p < 0.001) with the WBLT. All 
participants except one improved in ankle DFROM from day-to-day and week-to-week (Table 2). Post hoc 
analysis identified a significant change in ankle DFROM from pre-to-post of week 1 (p = .001), pre-to-post 
of week 2 p < .001, to pre-to-post week 3 (p = .001). The results indicated that there was an improvement 
with right ankle DFROM within each week. The significant results were associated with medium to large effect 
sizes (0.58-4.12) (Table 3). 

Table 2. Means (±Standard Deviations) for Ankle Dorsiflexion, Numbers Represent Degrees 
 W 1/D 1 W 1/D 2 W 2/D 1 W 2/D 2 W 3/D 1 W 3/D 2 

Right Ankle  4.74 ±5.42 7.10 ±4.80 10.91 ±5.33 15.60 ±4.32 21.2 ±5.53 24.4 ±5.63 
  

Table 3. Effects Size with Associated Confidence Intervals 
   P-Value  Effect Size   Lower Bound  Upper Bound 
Pre-Post Wk1 0.001 0.55 -0.39 1.49 
Pre-Post Wk2 <0.001 1.45 0.41 2.49 
Pre-Post Wk3 0.001 1.02 0.03 2.01 
PreWk1-Post Wk3      <0.001 3.91 2.28 5.54 

 

DISCUSSION   

The results from this study suggest that the application of GT alone may have an acute improvement on ankle 
DFROM. Similar improvements have been found in other studies which also evaluated the effects of GT on 
ankle DFROM.8-10 Literature11 has established normal range for ankle DFROM as 0-16.5 degrees for non-
weight bearing measurement and 7.1-34.7 degrees during weight-bearing measurement. Traditionally, less 
than 10 degrees of ankle DFROM has been cited as a noticeable deficit.2 Decreased DFROM can alter 
motor control and cause a lack of neuromuscular control. This deficit can also lead to a higher risk of injury 
of the lower limb in athletes, especially in the ankle, knee and hip region.11 Therefore, improvement of ankle 
dorsiflexion may assist in lower extremity injury prevention. 

One category of therapeutic interventions that can be used to increase DFROM is manual therapy, 
specifically GT.15 There are many other reported benefits with GT, some of which have shown to increase 
the fibroblast response in healing to produce more collagen with the controlled movement of the instruments.12 
The theory behind the GT benefits is that the technique improves the extensibility of the tissues by treating 
the tissue restrictions, along with decreasing inflammation after an acute injury.14 When heat is created from 
friction by the instrument, the viscosity of the tissue decreases, making it more pliable.15 Physiologically, a 
decrease in the viscosity of tissue improves ROM.16 Changes in ROM as a result of GT may also be explained 
with the hypothesis that the mechanical stress applied on the muscle fascia can cause the fascia to become 
stimulated.14 This change in stimulation alters the proprioceptive input sent to the central nervous system, 
which in turn changes the tension in the tissue.17 

In a cross comparison of studies, Palmer et al.8 found improvements with ankle DFROM when GT was 
combined with stretching. In our study, the GT group received a total of ten minutes for the GT treatment 
from the proximal gastrocnemius to the metatarsal heads. Palmer et al.8 completed a comprehensive 
treatment that focused on the anterior and posterior structures of the foot and the ankle, noting that these 



Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

8 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

locations of GT have a greater influence on ankle dorsiflexion. Similarly, Stanek et al.9 through the use of 
the WBLT, identified DFROM improvements after the application of a single session of GT at two different 
locations, the Achilles tendon and the soleus/gastrocnemius region. Rowlett et al.8 also identified significant 
improvements in DFROM with a single session of GT when ROM was measured using the WBLT. Rowlett et 
al.10 also found that both GT and stretching appear to have a greater effect on the muscle flexibility than 
just GT alone. Overall, these studies found an acute increase in DFROM after completing one application of 
GT. 8-10 

Implementing a GT program in a secondary school setting may be challenging if the athletic trainer does 
not have GT instruments, as one must be certified14 in the technique and have the financial means to attain 
the tools. However, implementing a general IASTM intervention, instead of specifically GT, may be more 
feasible as there is a wider variety of instruments and courses from which one can choose. Specifically, 
general IASTM tools may be more reasonable in terms of cost, access, and certification standards. In this 
current study, we focused on 10-minute treatment sessions which was time efficient. Similarly, other studies8-

10 attained acute results with DFROM when performing short treatment sessions that were done 1-2x/week 
with a minimum of 48 hours in between each session. It is recommended that GT treatment sessions have a 
minimum of 48 hours in between each session to allow the tissues to heal.19 Following the use of GT, other 
treatments may be used in conjunction.3,8,10 These treatments may include exercise such as stretching and 
strengthening, to aid in the tissue healing.20 Rowlett et al.10 also found that both GT and stretching appear 
to have a greater effect on the muscle flexibility than just GT alone. Nevertheless, including supplemental 
therapy or exercise can require more time commitment from the participant, coach, and the athletic trainer, 
and time itself is considered a limitation of prevention programs.21 Since higher compliance rates can 
positively affect outcomes for the participants, it is important to create a supervised and efficient prevention 
program.22,23 In this study, we chose to implement the program before the start of practice as pre-practice 
treatment sessions were already established throughout all sports. Furthermore, the participants gained the 
supplemental benefits of exercise as the participants could immediately begin warm-up drills and sport-
specific activities post-GT treatment. However, each participant may have different degrees of DFROM 
along with various histories of previous ankle injuries that may bring additional symptoms that must be 
addressed. Therefore, athletic trainers should evaluate the needs of the patient when deciding 
complimentary treatments for GT.  

Additionally, there are limitations within this study that needs to be addressed. First, having a small sample 
size may influence the results when examining the effects of GT on DFROM. Future studies will benefit from 
obtaining a larger sample size when completing a case validation study. The participants were recruited 
from a convenience sample within the traditional fall and winter athletics seasons. The athletic demands of 
the represented sports vary greatly, and therefore may have influenced inclusion and exclusion factors. 
Future case validation studies may benefit from investigating the effects of the intervention on individuals 
participating in other sports.  

CLINICAL BOTTOM LINE 

The findings from this case validation study concur with the guiding systematic review that the use of IASTM 
and GT is an effective intervention for increasing joint ROM at the ankle1 when assessing ROM with the 
WBLT. Healthy ankle ROM is an important part of an injury prevention program, and GT may be an effective 
way of improving functional limitations. Athletic trainers should examine their patient population to determine 
the feasibility of using IASTM as a treatment. 



Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

9 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

REFERENCES 

1. Seffrin CB, Cattano NM, Reed MA, Gardiner-Shires AM. Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue 
Mobilization: A Systematic Review and Effect-Size Analysis. J Athl Train. 2019;54(7):808-821. 
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-481-17.  

2. Young R, Nix S, Wholohan A, Bradhurst R, Reed L. Interventions for increasing ankle joint 
dorsiflexion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6(1):46. Published 
2013 Nov 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-6-46.  

3. Schaefer JL, Sandrey MA. Effects of a 4-week dynamic-balance-training program supplemented 
with Graston instrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization for chronic ankle instability. J Sport 
Rehabil. 2012;21(4):313-326. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.21.4.313.  

4. Konor MM, Morton S, Eckerson JM, Grindstaff TL. Reliability of three measures of ankle 
dorsiflexion range of motion. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(3):279-287. 

5. Cheatham SW, Baker R, Kreiswirth E. Instrument assisted soft-tissue mobilization : A commentary on 
clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation professionals. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2019;14(4):670-
682. 

6. Composite Measures: ONC-SAMHSA behavioral health clinical quality measures technical expert 
panel meeting August 9, 2012. Available at: 
https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2012-08-09-behavioral-health-clinical-quality-
measures-technical-expert-panel-composite-measures.pdf. Accessed on: December 11, 2020.  

7. Vicenzino B. Mobilisation with Movement: The Art and the Science. Churchill Livingstone; 2011. 
8. Palmer TG, Wilson D Bradley, Kohn M, Miko S. The Effect of Graston Massage Therapy on 

Talocrural Joint Range of Motion. IJATT. 2017;22(3):66-75. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2015-
0096.  

9. Stanek J, Sullivan T, Davis S. Comparison of Compressive Myofascial Release and the Graston 
Technique for Improving Ankle-Dorsiflexion Range of Motion. J Athl Train. 2018;53(2):160-167. 
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-386-16/.  

10. Rowlett CA, Hanney WJ, Pabian PS, McArthur JH, Rothschild CE, Kolber MJ. Efficacy of instrument-
assisted soft tissue mobilization in comparison to gastrocnemius-soleus stretching for dorsiflexion 
range of motion: A randomized controlled trial. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2019;23(2):233-240. 
https://doi.org10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.02.008.  

11. Baggett BD, Young G. Ankle joint dorsiflexion. Establishment of a normal range. J Am Podiatr Med 
Assoc. 1993;83(5):251-254. https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-83-5-251.  

12. Gonell AC, Romero JAP, Soler LM. Relationship between the y balance test scores and soft tissue 
injury incidence in a soccer team. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2015;10(7):955-966. 

13. Davidson CJ, Ganion LR, Gehlsen GM, Verhoestra B, Roepke JE, Sevier TL. Rat tendon morphologic 
and functional changes resulting from soft tissue mobilization. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 
1997;29(3):313–319. PubMed https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199703000-00005.  

14. Benefits of Graston Technique® Therapy. Graston Techniques. Accessed December 10, 2020. 
https://grastontechnique.com/Patients/ 

15. Kim J, Sung DJ, Lee J. Therapeutic effectiveness of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization for 
soft tissue injury: mechanisms and practical application. J Exerc Rehabil. 2017;13(1):12-22. 
https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1732824.412.  

16. Markovic G. Acute effects of instrument assisted soft tissue mobilization vs. foam rolling on knee 
and hip range of motion in soccer players. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19(4):690-696. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.04.010.  

https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-481-17
https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-1146-6-46
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.21.4.313
https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2012-08-09-behavioral-health-clinical-quality-measures-technical-expert-panel-composite-measures.pdf
https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2012-08-09-behavioral-health-clinical-quality-measures-technical-expert-panel-composite-measures.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2015-0096
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2015-0096
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-386-16/
https://doi.org10.1016/j.jbmt.2018.02.008
https://doi.org/10.7547/87507315-83-5-251
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199703000-00005
https://grastontechnique.com/Patients/
https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1732824.412
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.04.010


Improving Ankle Range of Motion with the Use of Instrument Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization: A Validation Case Study 

 

10 
Copyright © by Indiana State University                                                                                Clinical Practice in Athletic Training  
All rights reserved. ISSN Online 2577-8188                                                                     Volume 5 – Issue 2 – September 2022 

 

17. Ostojic SM, Vukomanovic B, Calleja-Gonzalez J, Hoffman JR. effectiveness of oral and topical 
hydrogen for sports-related soft tissue injuries. Postgraduate Medicine. 2014;126(5):188-196. 
https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2014.09.2813.  

18. Schleip R. Fascial mechanoreceptors and their potential role in deep tissue manipulation. J Bodyw 
Mov Ther. 2003;7:104-116. 

19. Graston Technique. Summit Orthopedics. Accessed April 29, 2021. 
https://www.summitortho.com/services/physical-therapy/physical-therapy-advanced-
techniques/grastontechnique/#:~:text=How%20frequently%20Graston%20treatments%20are,4
8%20hours%20in%20between%20sessions.  

20. Graston Technique Treatment: What to Expect. Spine-Health. Accessed April 29, 2021. 
https://www.spine-health.com/treatment/chiropractic/graston-technique-treatment-what-expect 

21. Soligard T, Nilstad A, Steffen K, et al. Compliance with a comprehensive warm-up programme to 
prevent injuries in youth football. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(11):787- 793. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.070672.  

22. van Reijen M, Vriend I, van Mechelen W, Finch CF, Verhagen EA. Compliance with sport injury 
prevention interventions in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review. Sports Med. 
2016;46:1125-1139. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0470-8.  

23. Steffen K, Meeuwisse WH, Romiti M, et al. Evaluation of how different implementation strategies 
of an injury prevention program impact team adherence and injury risk in Canadian female youth 
football players: A cluster-randomized trial. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(8):480-487. 
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091887.  

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2014.09.2813
https://www.summitortho.com/services/physical-therapy/physical-therapy-advanced-techniques/grastontechnique/#:%7E:text=How%20frequently%20Graston%20treatments%20are,48%20hours%20in%20between%20sessions
https://www.summitortho.com/services/physical-therapy/physical-therapy-advanced-techniques/grastontechnique/#:%7E:text=How%20frequently%20Graston%20treatments%20are,48%20hours%20in%20between%20sessions
https://www.summitortho.com/services/physical-therapy/physical-therapy-advanced-techniques/grastontechnique/#:%7E:text=How%20frequently%20Graston%20treatments%20are,48%20hours%20in%20between%20sessions
https://www.spine-health.com/treatment/chiropractic/graston-technique-treatment-what-expect
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.070672
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs40279-016-0470-8
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091887

	ABSTRACT

