13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effects of Upper-Body Plyometric Training on Physical Fitness in Healthy Youth and Young Adult Participants: 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

          Upper-body plyometric training (UBPT) is a commonly used training method, yet its effects on physical fitness are inconsistent and there is a lack of comprehensive reviews on the topic.

          Objective

          To examine the effects of UBPT on physical fitness in healthy youth and young adult participants compared to active, specific-active, and passive controls.

          Methods

          This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and utilized the PICOS framework. PubMed, WOS, and SCOPUS were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility using the PICOS framework. The effects of UBPT on upper-body physical fitness were assessed, including maximal strength, medicine ball throw performance, sport-specific throwing performance, and upper limb muscle volume. The risk of bias was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Means and standard deviations were used to calculate effect sizes, and the I 2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using the extended Egger's test. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE scale. Additional analyses included sensitivity analyses and adverse effects.

          Results

          Thirty-five studies were included in the systematic review and 30 studies in meta-analyses, involving 1412 male and female participants from various sport-fitness backgrounds. Training duration ranged from 4 to 16 weeks. Compared to controls, UBPT improved maximal strength (small ES = 0.39 95% CI = 0.15–0.63, p = 0.002, I 2 = 29.7%), medicine ball throw performance (moderate ES = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.43–0.85, p < 0.001, I 2 = 46.3%), sport-specific throwing performance (small ES = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.25–0.86, p < 0.001, I 2 = 36.8%), and upper limbs muscle volume (moderate ES = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.20–1.08, p = 0.005, I 2 = 0.0%). The GRADE analyses provided low or very low certainty for the recommendation of UBPT for improving physical fitness in healthy participants. One study reported one participant with an injury due to UBPT. The other 34 included studies provided no report measure for adverse effects linked to UBPT.

          Conclusions

          UBPT interventions may enhance physical fitness in healthy youth and young adult individuals compared to control conditions. However, the certainty of evidence for these recommendations is low or very low. Further research is needed to establish the optimal dose of UBPT and to determine its effect on female participants and its transfer to other upper-body dominated sports.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-023-00631-2.

          Key Points

          • Upper-body plyometric training can be effective at improving maximal strength, medicine ball throwing performance, sport-specific throwing performance, and muscle volume in healthy youth and young adult participants.

          • An effective dose of a progressive overload UBPT programme may involve: a minimal duration of 4 weeks, 2–4 sessions/week, 1–6 exercises/session, 1–10 sets per exercise, a mean of ~ 12 repetitions/set (range 3–30; lower range usually with maximal effort-intensity), and an inter-set and inter-session rest of 15–240 s and 48–96 h, respectively.

          • The findings of this meta-analysis were derived from 30 articles with low risk of bias (good methodological quality), low study heterogeneity, and low to very low certainty of evidence (GRADE), encompassing a total of 1,412 participants ranging from 7.3 to 27.2 years of age.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-023-00631-2.

          Related collections

          Most cited references143

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

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            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
                mikel.izquierdo@unavarra.es
                Journal
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Med Open
                Sports Medicine - Open
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                2199-1170
                2198-9761
                13 October 2023
                13 October 2023
                December 2023
                : 9
                : 93
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.497559.3, ISNI 0000 0000 9472 5109, Navarrabiomed-Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA), , Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra (CHN), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IdiSNA), ; 31008 Pamplona, Navarra Spain
                [2 ]Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Physical Therapy, Universidad Andres Bello, ( https://ror.org/01qq57711) 7591538 Santiago, Chile
                [3 ]Symbiosis School of Sports Sciences, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), ( https://ror.org/005r2ww51) Pune, 412115 India
                [4 ]Faculty of Sport, Centre of Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), University of Porto, ( https://ror.org/043pwc612) 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
                [5 ]Department of Sport and Sport Science, Exercise and Human Movement Science, University of Freiburg, ( https://ror.org/0245cg223) Freiburg, Germany
                [6 ]GRID grid.410476.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2174 6440, Department of Health Sciences, , Public University of Navarra, ; Av. De Barañain s/n, 31008 Pamplona, Navarra Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1506-4272
                Article
                631
                10.1186/s40798-023-00631-2
                10575843
                37833510
                79463bf6-cbd8-4691-a444-005be5f88f2f
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

                Open Access This 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
                : 25 April 2023
                : 19 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau (1016)
                Categories
                Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

                plyometric exercise,muscle strength,musculoskeletal physiological phenomena,human physical conditioning,resistance training,athletic performance,sports medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article