## 3 Results
### Characteristics of Included Studies  
This review analysed the effects of different stretching in the warm-up on physical performance variables such as jump height in CMJ and ROM. Fourteen of the included articles analysed the CMJ [38; 39; 40; 41] and five analysed the ROM [39; 41; 50; 52; 53]. The characteristics of the participants are summarised in Table 1. All studies were published between 2008 and 2023. There was a total of 363 participants (mean \(\pm\) SD: age 22 \(\pm\) 2 years; weight 74.24 \(\pm\) 10.22 kg; height 175.97 \(\pm\) 6.76 cm), 31.95% women and 68.04% men, and they were students or active individuals. The characteristics of the warm-up protocol are presented in Table 2. The warm-up protocols had an average total time duration of \(825.6\pm 349.2\) s, an average time of aerobic warm-up of 366 \(\pm\) 142.2 s, an average of stretching time of \(22.0\pm 11.8\) s, an average rest stretching of \(14.4\pm 7.7\) s, with a range of 1-2 set and 1-12 repetitions. All subjects were evaluated immediately after a warm-up intervention. The warm-up protocols started with an aerobic warm-up for 5-10 min and continued with the stretching protocol. The subject executed all experimental conditions on different days. Figure 1: Flow diagram. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study ID** & **Group** & \(n\) & **Sex** & **Activity/Sport** & **Age (Years)** & **Weight (kg)** & **Height (cm)** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [52] & CG (NI) & 14 & female & physical education students & 23.1 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 64.9 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 169.3 \(\pm\) 8.2 \\  & EG (SS) & 14 & female & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [38] & CG (NI) & 11 & male & physical education students & 21.5 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 73.3 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 177.0 \(\pm\) 5.0 \\  & EG (SS) & 11 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [39] & CG (NI) & 10 & female & Athletes of futsal & & & \\  & EG (SS) & 10 & female & & & & \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40] & CG (NI) & 68 & both & athletes of basketball & 20.5 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 100.7 \(\pm\) 17.7 & 186.9 \(\pm\) 7.7 \\  & EG (DS) & 68 & both & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [41] & CG (NI) & 23 & female & recreationally active university & 26.0 \(\pm\) 3.0 & 61.5 \(\pm\) 8.1 & 165.1 \(\pm\) 8.8 \\  & EG (SS) & 23 & female & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [42] & CG (NI) & 12 & female & university volleyball players & 19.5 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 71.3 \(\pm\) 8.5 & 171.0 \(\pm\) 6.0 \\  & EG (SS) & 12 & female & & & & \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [43] & CG (NI) & 22 & male & amateur athletes of different sports & 23.2 \(\pm\) 5.0 & 82.8 \(\pm\) 12.6 & 178.0 \(\pm\) 6.0 \\  & EG (SS) & 22 & male & & sports & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [44] & CG (NI) & 25 & female & active strength training & 28.2 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 56.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 162.2 \(\pm\) 1.4 \\  & EG (SS) & 25 & female & & & & \\ [PERSON] (2010) [45] & CG (NI) & 24 & male & & & & \\  & EG (DS1) & 24 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] and & CG (NI) & 27 & male & semiprofessional soccer players & 20.5 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 74.8 \(\pm\) 2.2 & 180.3 \(\pm\) 5.9 \\  & EG (SS) & 27 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] and & & EG (DS) & 27 & male & & & \\  & EG (DS) & 21 & male & & & & \\  & EG (DS) & 21 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [53] & CG (NI) & 20 & male & professional football players & 25.3 \(\pm\) 4.3 & 79.1 \(\pm\) 4.2 & 183.0 \(\pm\) 3.0 \\  & EG (SS) & 20 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [48] & CG (NI) & 15 & male & active & 23.5 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 67.2 \(\pm\) 9.9 & 172.1 \(\pm\) 6.4 \\  & EG (SS) & 15 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [49] & CG (NI) & 29 & male & & & & \\  & EG (SS) & 29 & male & & & & \\  & EG (DS) & 29 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [50] & CG (NI) & 21 & male & recreationally active & 24.4 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 81.1 \(\pm\) 14.0 & 180.0 \(\pm\) 6.0 \\  & EG (SS) & 21 & male & & & & \\ [PERSON] et al. [51] & CG (NI) & 21 & male & & & & \\  & EG (DS) & 21 & male & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis.