7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Plyometric jump training effects on the physical fitness of individual-sport athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

      research-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

          The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to explore the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on the physical fitness of individual sport athletes (ISA).

          Methods

          Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched through PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS electronic databases. We included controlled studies that incorporated a PJT intervention among ISA (with no restriction for age or sex), that included a pre-to-post intervention assessment of physical fitness (e.g., sprint; jump). From the included studies, relevant data (e.g., PJT and participants characteristics) was extracted. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the PEDro scale. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses for a given outcome was conducted. Means and standard deviations for a measure of pre-post-intervention physical fitness from the PJT and control groups were converted to Hedges’ g effect size (ES). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. The risk of bias was explored using the extended Egger’s test. The statistical significance threshold was set at p < 0.05. Moderator analyses were conducted according to the sex, age and sport background of the athletes.

          Results

          Twenty-six studies of moderate-high methodological quality were included (total participants, n = 667). Compared to controls, PJT improved vertical jump (ES = 0.49; p < 0.001; I = 0.0%), linear sprint (ES = 0.23; p = 0.032; I 2 = 10.9%), maximal strength (ES = 0.50; p < 0.001; I 2 = 0.0%) and endurance performance (ES = 0.30; p = 0.028; I 2 = 11.1%). No significant effect was noted for sprint with change of direction (ES = 0.34; p = 0.205; I 2 = 70.9%). Athlete’s sex, age and sport background had no modulator role on the effect of PJT on vertical jump, linear sprint, maximal strength and endurance performance. Among the included studies, none reported adverse effects related to the PJT intervention.

          Conclusions

          PJT induces small improvements on ISA physical fitness, including jumping, sprinting speed, strength and endurance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references97

          • 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

            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: not found

              Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine and exercise science.

              Statistical guidelines and expert statements are now available to assist in the analysis and reporting of studies in some biomedical disciplines. We present here a more progressive resource for sample-based studies, meta-analyses, and case studies in sports medicine and exercise science. We offer forthright advice on the following controversial or novel issues: using precision of estimation for inferences about population effects in preference to null-hypothesis testing, which is inadequate for assessing clinical or practical importance; justifying sample size via acceptable precision or confidence for clinical decisions rather than via adequate power for statistical significance; showing SD rather than SEM, to better communicate the magnitude of differences in means and nonuniformity of error; avoiding purely nonparametric analyses, which cannot provide inferences about magnitude and are unnecessary; using regression statistics in validity studies, in preference to the impractical and biased limits of agreement; making greater use of qualitative methods to enrich sample-based quantitative projects; and seeking ethics approval for public access to the depersonalized raw data of a study, to address the need for more scrutiny of research and better meta-analyses. Advice on less contentious issues includes the following: using covariates in linear models to adjust for confounders, to account for individual differences, and to identify potential mechanisms of an effect; using log transformation to deal with nonuniformity of effects and error; identifying and deleting outliers; presenting descriptive, effect, and inferential statistics in appropriate formats; and contending with bias arising from problems with sampling, assignment, blinding, measurement error, and researchers' prejudices. This article should advance the field by stimulating debate, promoting innovative approaches, and serving as a useful checklist for authors, reviewers, and editors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ
                PeerJ Inc. (San Diego, USA )
                2167-8359
                1 March 2021
                2021
                : 9
                : e11004
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Nursery and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida , Lleida, Spain
                [2 ]GRECS Research Group, IrB Lleida , Lleida, Spain
                [3 ]Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Universidad de Los Lagos , Santiago, Chile
                [4 ]Centro de Investigación en Fisiología del Ejercicio, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Mayor , Santiago, Chile
                [5 ]Centro de Fisiología y Medicina de Altura, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Antofagasta , Antofagasta, Chile
                [6 ]Research Group Planning and Assessment of Training and Athletic Performance, Pontifical University of Salamanca , Salamanca, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2035-3279
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2006-1444
                Article
                11004
                10.7717/peerj.11004
                7931718
                33717707
                d5146fe5-d050-4385-920b-011f8e8d8ddf
                © 2021 Sole et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

                History
                : 18 December 2020
                : 2 February 2021
                Funding
                The authors received no funding for this work.
                Categories
                Cardiology
                Kinesiology
                Orthopedics

                human physical conditioning,resistance training,exercise therapy,physical education and training,muscles,plyometric exercise,sports,martial arts,stretch reflex,athletic performance

                Comments

                Comment on this article