@misc{GebelLesinskiBehmetal.2018,
  author    = {Gebel, Arnd and Lesinski, Melanie and Behm, David George and Granacher, Urs},
  title     = {Effects and dose-response relationship of balance training on balance performance in Youth},
  series = {Sports medicine},
  volume    = {48},
  journal   = {Sports medicine},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Northcote},
  issn      = {0112-1642},
  doi       = {10.1007/s40279-018-0926-0},
  pages     = {2067 -- 2089},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background Effects and dose-response relationships of balance training on measures of balance are well-documented for healthy young and old adults. However, this has not been systematically studied in youth. Objectives The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to quantify effects of balance training (BT) on measures of static and dynamic balance in healthy children and adolescents. Additionally, dose-response relations for BT modalities (e.g. training period, frequency, volume) were quantified through the analysis of controlled trials. Data Sources A computerized systematic literature search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science from January 1986 until June 2017 to identify articles related to BT in healthy trained and untrained children and adolescents. Study Eligibility Criteria A systematic approach was used to evaluate articles that examined the effects of BT on balance outcomes in youth. Controlled trials with pre- and post-measures were included if they examined healthy youth with a mean age of 6-19 years and assessed at least one measure of balance (i.e. static/dynamic steady-state balance, reactive balance, proactive balance) with behavioural (e.g. time during single-leg stance) or biomechanical (e.g. centre of pressure displacements during single-leg stance) test methods. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods The included studies were coded for the following criteria: training modalities (i.e. training period, frequency, volume), balance outcomes (i.e. static and dynamic balance) as well as chronological age, sex (male vs. female), training status (trained vs. untrained), setting (school vs. club), and testing method (biomechanical vs. physical fitness test). Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) were calculated using a random-effects model to compute overall intervention effects relative to active and passive control groups. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and chi(2) statistics. A multivariate random effects meta-regression was computed to explain the influence of key training modalities (i.e. training period, training frequency, total number of training sessions, duration of training sessions, and total duration of training per week) on the effectiveness of BT on measures of balance performance. Further, subgroup univariate analyses were computed for each training modality. Additionally, dose-response relationships were characterized independently by interpreting the modality specific magnitude of effect sizes. Methodological quality of the included studies was rated with the help of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. Results Overall, our literature search revealed 198 hits of which 17 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Irrespective of age, sex, training status, sport discipline and training method, moderate to large BT-related effects were found for measures of static (SMDwm = 0.71) and dynamic (SMDwm = 1.03) balance in youth. However, our subgroup analyses did not reveal any statistically significant effects of the moderator variables age, sex, training status, setting and testing method on overall balance (i.e. aggregation of static and dynamic balance). BT-related effects in adolescents were moderate to large for measures of static (SMDwm = 0.61) and dynamic (SMDwm = 0.86) balance. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the multivariate random effects meta-regression revealed that none of the examined training modalities predicted the effects of BT on balance performance in adolescents (R-2 = 0.00). In addition, results from univariate analysis have to be interpreted with caution because training modalities were computed as single factors irrespective of potential between-modality interactions. For training period, 12 weeks of training achieved the largest effect (SMDwm = 1.40). For training frequency, the largest effect was found for two sessions per week (SMDwm = 1.29). For total number of training sessions, the largest effect was observed for 24-36 sessions (SMDwm = 1.58). For the modality duration of a single training session, 4-15 min reached the largest effect (SMDwm = 1.03). Finally, for the modality training per week, a total duration of 31-60 min per week (SMDwm = 1.33) provided the largest effects on overall balance in adolescents. Methodological quality of the studies was rated as moderate with a median PEDro score of 6.0. Limitations Dose-response relationships were calculated independently for training modalities (i.e. modality specific) and not interdependently. Training intensity was not considered for the calculation of dose-response relationships because the included studies did not report this training modality. Further, the number of included studies allowed the characterization of dose-response relationships in adolescents for overall balance only. In addition, our analyses revealed a considerable between-study heterogeneity (I-2 = 66-83\%). The results of this meta-analysis have to be interpreted with caution due to their preliminary status. Conclusions BT is a highly effective means to improve balance performance with moderate to large effects on static and dynamic balance in healthy youth irrespective of age, sex, training status, setting and testing method. The examined training modalities did not have a moderating effect on balance performance in healthy adolescents. Thus, we conclude that an additional but so far unidentified training modality may have a major effect on balance performance that was not assessed in our analysis. Training intensity could be a promising candidate. However, future studies are needed to find appropriate methods to assess BT intensity.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrabowYoungAlcocketal.2018,
  author    = {Grabow, Lena and Young, James D. and Alcock, Lynsey R. and Quigley, Patrick J. and Byrne, Jeannette M. and Granacher, Urs and Skarabot, Jakob and Behm, David George},
  title     = {Higher Quadriceps Roller Massage Forces Do Not Amplify Range-of-Motion Increases nor Impair Strength and Jump Performance},
  series = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA},
  volume    = {32},
  journal   = {Journal of strength and conditioning research : the research journal of the NSCA},
  number    = {11},
  publisher = {Lippincott Williams \& Wilkins},
  address   = {Philadelphia},
  issn      = {1064-8011},
  doi       = {10.1519/JSC.0000000000001906},
  pages     = {3059 -- 3069},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Grabow, L, Young, JD, Alcock, LR, Quigley, PJ, Byrne, JM, Granacher, U, Škarabot, J, and Behm, DG. Higher quadriceps roller massage forces do not amplify range-of-motion increases nor impair strength and jump performance. J Strength Cond Res 32(11): 3059-3069, 2018—Roller massage (RM) has been reported to increase range of motion (ROM) without subsequent performance decrements. However, the effects of different rolling forces have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of sham (RMsham), moderate (RMmod), and high (RMhigh) RM forces, calculated relative to the individuals' pain perception, on ROM, strength, and jump parameters. Sixteen healthy individuals (27 ± 4 years) participated in this study. The intervention involved three 60-second quadriceps RM bouts with RMlow (3.9/10 ± 0.64 rating of perceived pain [RPP]), RMmod (6.2/10 ± 0.64 RPP), and RMhigh (8.2/10 ± 0.44 RPP) pain conditions, respectively. A within-subject design was used to assess dependent variables (active and passive knee flexion ROM, single-leg drop jump [DJ] height, DJ contact time, DJ performance index, maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC] force, and force produced in the first 200 milliseconds [F200] of the knee extensors and flexors). A 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance showed a main effect of testing time in active (p < 0.001, d = 2.54) and passive (p < 0.001, d = 3.22) ROM. Independent of the RM forces, active and passive ROM increased by 7.0\% (p = 0.03, d = 2.25) and 15.4\% (p < 0.001, d = 3.73) from premeasure to postmeasure, respectively. Drop jump and MVIC parameters were unaffected from pretest to posttest (p > 0.05, d = 0.33-0.84). Roller massage can be efficiently used to increase ROM without substantial pain and without subsequent performance impairments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{GranacherPutaGabrieletal.2018,
  author    = {Granacher, Urs and Puta, Christian and Gabriel, Holger H. W. and Behm, David George and Arampatzis, Adamantios},
  title     = {Neuromuscular Training and Adaptations in Youth Athletes},
  series = {Frontiers in physiology},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Frontiers in physiology},
  publisher = {Frontiers Research Foundation},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-042X},
  doi       = {10.3389/fphys.2018.01264},
  pages     = {5},
  year      = {2018},
  language  = {en}
}