2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effect of flywheel training on strength and physical capacities in sporting and healthy populations: An umbrella review

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 1 , 2 , * ,
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this umbrella review was to provide a detailed summary of how flywheel training enhances strength and physical capacities in healthy and athletic populations. The eleven reviews included were analyzed for methodological quality according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Two were systematic reviews, six were systematic reviews with meta-analyses and three were narrative reviews. Although the included reviews support use of flywheel training with athletic and healthy populations, the umbrella review highlights disparity in methodological quality and over-reporting of studies (38 studies were included overall). Flywheel post-activation performance enhancement protocols can effectively enhance strength and physical capacities acutely with athletes and healthy populations. All relevant reviews support flywheel training as a valid alternative to traditional resistance training for enhancing muscular strength, power, and jump performance with untrained and trained populations alike. Similarly, reviews included report flywheel training enhances change of direction performance—although conclusions are based on a limited number of investigations. However, the reviews investigating the effect of flywheel training on sprint performance highlight some inconsistency in attained improvements with elite athletes (e.g., soccer players). To optimize training outcomes, it is recommended practitioners individualize ( i. e., create inertia-power or inertia-velocity profiles) and periodize flywheel training using the latest guidelines. This umbrella review provides an analysis of the literature’s strengths and limitations, creating a clear scope for future investigations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

            The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

              With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                25 February 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 2
                : e0264375
                Affiliations
                [1 ] School of Health and Sports Science, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Suffolk, Ipswich, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Isabel I, Burgos, Spain
                University of Cassino e Lazio Meridionale, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1113-164X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3570-7159
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5373-2211
                Article
                PONE-D-21-34215
                10.1371/journal.pone.0264375
                8880830
                35213634
                3531e1f9-08e1-479b-bb17-a8f87998ba97
                © 2022 de Keijzer et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 27 October 2021
                : 9 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 18
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Human Performance
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Human Performance
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Recreation
                Sports
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Recreation
                Sports
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Sports Science
                Sports
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Physical Activity
                Physical Fitness
                Exercise
                Strength Training
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Strength Training
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Sports Science
                Sports and Exercise Medicine
                Exercise
                Strength Training
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Running
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Physics
                Classical Mechanics
                Motion
                Inertia
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Biological Locomotion
                Jumping
                Custom metadata
                The data are available online - it is an umbrella review, therefore, we have done a review of all previous reviews published on this topic. The papers used in this paper are reported in our manuscript and they can be found online.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article