5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Plyometric-Jump Training Effects on Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance According to Maturity: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

      review-article

      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

          Background

          Among youth, plyometric-jump training (PJT) may provide a safe, accessible, and time-efficient training method. Less is known on PJT effectiveness according to the maturity status.

          Objective

          This systematic review with meta-analysis set out to analyse the body of peer-reviewed articles assessing the effects of PJT on measures of physical fitness [i.e., maximal dynamic strength; change of direction (COD) speed; linear sprint speed; horizontal and vertical jump performance; reactive strength index] and sport-specific performance (i.e., soccer ball kicking and dribbling velocity) according to the participants’ maturity status.

          Methods

          Systematic searches were conducted in three electronic databases using the following inclusion criteria: (i) Population: healthy participants aged < 18 years; (ii) Intervention: PJT program including unilateral and/or bilateral jumps; (iii) Comparator: groups of different maturity status with control groups; (iv) Outcomes: at least one measure of physical fitness and/or sport-specific performance before and after PJT; (v) experimental design with an active or passive control group, and two or more maturity groups exposed to the same PJT. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models were used to compute the meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the PEDro checklist. GRADE was applied to assess certainty of evidence.

          Results

          From 11,028 initially identified studies across three electronic databases, 11 studies were finally eligible to be meta-analysed ( n total = 744; seven studies recruited males; four studies recruited females). Three studies were rated as high quality (6 points), and eight studies were of moderate quality (5 points). Seven studies reported the maturity status using age at peak height velocity (PHV; pre-PHV values up to − 2.3; post-PHV up to 2.5). Another four studies used Tanner staging (from Tanner I to V). The training programmes ranged from 4 to 36 weeks, using 1–3 weekly training sessions. When compared to controls, pre-PHV and post-PHV participants obtained small-to-moderate improvements (ES = 0.35 − 0.80, all p < 0.05) in most outcomes (i.e., sport-specific performance; maximal dynamic strength; linear sprint; horizontal jump; reactive strength index) after PJT. The contrast of pre-PHV with post-PHV youth revealed that PJT was similarly effective in both maturity groups, in most outcome measures except for COD speed (in favour of pre-PHV). PJT induces similar physical fitness and sport-specific performance benefits in males and females, with a minimal exercise dosage of 4 weeks (8 intervention sessions), and 92 weekly jumps. Results of this meta-analysis are based on low study heterogeneity, and low to very low certainty of evidence (GRADE analysis) for all outcomes.

          Conclusion

          Compared to control participants, PJT resulted in improved maximal dynamic strength, linear sprint speed, horizontal jump performance, reactive strength index, and sport-specific performance (i.e., soccer ball kicking and dribbling velocity). These effects seem to occur independently of the maturity status, as both pre-PHV and post-PHV participants achieved similar improvements after PJT interventions for most outcomes. However, several methodological issues (e.g., low sample sizes and the pooling of maturity categories) preclude the attainment of more robust recommendations at the current time. To address this issue, consistency in maturity status reporting strategies must be improved in future studies with the general youth population and youth athletes.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-023-00568-6.

          Related collections

          Most cited references182

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • 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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                urs.granacher@sport.uni-freiburg.de
                Journal
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Medicine - Open
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                2199-1170
                2198-9761
                10 April 2023
                10 April 2023
                December 2023
                : 9
                : 23
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.412848.3, ISNI 0000 0001 2156 804X, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, , Universidad Andres Bello, ; 7591538 Santiago, Chile
                [2 ]GRID grid.266886.4, ISNI 0000 0004 0402 6494, School of Nursing, Midwifery, Health Sciences and Physiotherapy, , University of Notre Dame Australia, ; Sydney, Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.8356.8, ISNI 0000 0001 0942 6946, School of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, , University of Essex, ; Colchester, Essex CO43SQ UK
                [4 ]GRID grid.5808.5, ISNI 0000 0001 1503 7226, Centre of Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, , University of Porto, ; Porto, Portugal
                [5 ]GRID grid.27883.36, ISNI 0000 0000 8824 6371, Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, , Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun’Álvares, ; 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal
                [6 ]Research Center in Sports Performance, Recreation, Innovation and Technology (SPRINT), 4960-320 Melgaço, Portugal
                [7 ]GRID grid.421174.5, ISNI 0000 0004 0393 4941, Instituto de Telecomunicações, ; Delegação da Covilhã, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
                [8 ]GRID grid.47170.35, Youth Physical Development Centre, Cardiff School of Sport and Health Sciences, , Cardiff Metropolitan University, ; Cardiff, CF23 6XD UK
                [9 ]GRID grid.5963.9, Department of Sport and Sport Science, Exercise and Human Movement Science, , University of Freiburg, ; Sandfangweg 4, 79102 Freiburg, Germany
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2035-3279
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7095-813X
                Article
                568
                10.1186/s40798-023-00568-6
                10086091
                37036542
                75518efa-280a-46c6-8e98-b31fa1bdca2b
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 November 2022
                : 26 March 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau (1016)
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2023

                plyometric exercise,musculoskeletal and neural physiological phenomena,human physical conditioning,movement,muscle strength,resistance training,youth sports

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content139

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors2,314