Refine
Language
- English (22)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (22)
Keywords
- human physical conditioning (8)
- football (7)
- resistance training (7)
- stretch-shortening cycle (7)
- exercise (6)
- movement (5)
- muscle strength (4)
- plyometric exercise (4)
- Muscle strength (3)
- musculoskeletal and neural physiological phenomena (3)
- physical fitness (3)
- Human physical conditioning (2)
- Movement (2)
- Musculoskeletal and neural physiological phenomena (2)
- Plyometric exercise (2)
- Resistance training (2)
- aged (2)
- agility (2)
- exercise therapy (2)
- maturity (2)
- muscle growth (2)
- muscle power (2)
- muscle tissue (2)
- postural control (2)
- sports (2)
- stretch shortening cycle exercise (2)
- team sports (2)
- training load (2)
- women (2)
- youth sport (2)
- youth sports (2)
- athlete (1)
- athletic (1)
- change of direction (1)
- girls (1)
- high-intensity interval training (1)
- jumping (1)
- muscular power (1)
- performance (1)
- running velocity (1)
- sport (1)
- talent (1)
- training optimization (1)
- young (1)
- young athletes (1)
- youth (1)
Objective: To examine the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to September 2021.
Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The main overall finding (44 effect sizes across 15 clusters median = 2, range = 1–15 effects per cluster) indicated that plyometric jump training had small to moderate effects [standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.47 (95% CIs = 0.23–0.71); p < 0.001] on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses for training experience revealed trivial to large effects in non-athletes [SMD = 0.55 (95% CIs = 0.18–0.93); p = 0.007] and trivial to moderate effects in athletes [SMD = 0.33 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.51); p = 0.001]. Regarding muscle groups, results showed moderate effects for the knee extensors [SMD = 0.72 (95% CIs = 0.66–0.78), p < 0.001] and equivocal effects for the plantar flexors [SMD = 0.65 (95% CIs = −0.25–1.55); p = 0.143]. As to the assessment methods of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, findings indicated trivial to small effects for prediction equations [SMD = 0.29 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.42); p < 0.001] and moderate-to-large effects for ultrasound imaging [SMD = 0.74 (95% CIs = 0.59–0.89); p < 0.001]. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the weekly session frequency moderates the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, with a higher weekly session frequency inducing larger hypertrophic gains [β = 0.3233 (95% CIs = 0.2041–0.4425); p < 0.001]. We found no clear evidence that age, sex, total training period, single session duration, or the number of jumps per week moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy [β = −0.0133 to 0.0433 (95% CIs = −0.0387 to 0.1215); p = 0.101–0.751].
Conclusion: Plyometric jump training can induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy, regardless of age and sex. There is evidence for relatively larger effects in non-athletes compared with athletes. Further, the weekly session frequency seems to moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, whereby more frequent weekly plyometric jump training sessions elicit larger hypertrophic adaptations.
Objective: To examine the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy in healthy individuals.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to September 2021.
Results: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The main overall finding (44 effect sizes across 15 clusters median = 2, range = 1–15 effects per cluster) indicated that plyometric jump training had small to moderate effects [standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.47 (95% CIs = 0.23–0.71); p < 0.001] on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Subgroup analyses for training experience revealed trivial to large effects in non-athletes [SMD = 0.55 (95% CIs = 0.18–0.93); p = 0.007] and trivial to moderate effects in athletes [SMD = 0.33 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.51); p = 0.001]. Regarding muscle groups, results showed moderate effects for the knee extensors [SMD = 0.72 (95% CIs = 0.66–0.78), p < 0.001] and equivocal effects for the plantar flexors [SMD = 0.65 (95% CIs = −0.25–1.55); p = 0.143]. As to the assessment methods of skeletal muscle hypertrophy, findings indicated trivial to small effects for prediction equations [SMD = 0.29 (95% CIs = 0.16–0.42); p < 0.001] and moderate-to-large effects for ultrasound imaging [SMD = 0.74 (95% CIs = 0.59–0.89); p < 0.001]. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the weekly session frequency moderates the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, with a higher weekly session frequency inducing larger hypertrophic gains [β = 0.3233 (95% CIs = 0.2041–0.4425); p < 0.001]. We found no clear evidence that age, sex, total training period, single session duration, or the number of jumps per week moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy [β = −0.0133 to 0.0433 (95% CIs = −0.0387 to 0.1215); p = 0.101–0.751].
Conclusion: Plyometric jump training can induce skeletal muscle hypertrophy, regardless of age and sex. There is evidence for relatively larger effects in non-athletes compared with athletes. Further, the weekly session frequency seems to moderate the effect of plyometric jump training on skeletal muscle hypertrophy, whereby more frequent weekly plyometric jump training sessions elicit larger hypertrophic adaptations.
Biological maturation has been shown to affect male youths' responses to plyometric training (PT). However, to date, no researcher has examined the effect of maturation on the effects of PT in female youth. We undertook the first controlled intervention study to examine this, focusing on adaptive responses to countermovement jump (CMJ), reactive strength index (RSI), and change of direction (COD) performance in groups of female youth divided by maturation status (years from peak height velocity [PHV]). The training program lasted 7 weeks with subjects undertaking 2 sessions of PT per week. In the mid-PHV group, there was a small increase (effect size; 90% confidence interval = 0.40; -0.23 to 1.03) in CMJ performance. No changes were observed in the post-PHV group (0.02; -0.68 to 0.72). For RSI, there was a moderate increase in the mid-PHV group (0.94; 0.29-1.59) with only a trivial increase in the post-PHV group (0.06; -0.65 to 0.76). The intervention exerted no positive effect on COD performance in any group. Plyometric training seems to enhance CMJ and RSI in female youth, although the magnitude of adaptation could be affected by maturation status. A twice-per-week program of multidirectional jumping and hopping, with bilateral and unilateral components, can be used as a preparatory precursor to physical education classes or recreational sport.
Plyometric jump training (PJT) is a frequently used and effective means to improve amateur and elite soccer players' physical fitness. However, it is unresolved how different PJT frequencies per week with equal overall training volume may affect training-induced adaptations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of an in-season 8 week PJT with one session vs. two sessions per week and equal training volume on components of physical fitness in amateur female soccer players. A single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants (N = 23; age, 21.4 ± 3.2 years) were randomly assigned to a one session PJT per-week (PJT-1, n = 8), two sessions PJT per-week (PJT-2, n = 8) or an active control group (CON, n = 7). Before and after training, participants performed countermovement jumps (CMJ), drop-jumps from a 20-cm drop-height (DJ20), a maximal kicking velocity test (MKV), the 15-m linear sprint-time test, the Meylan test for the assessment of change of direction ability (CoDA), and the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery endurance test (Yo-YoIR1). Results revealed significant main effects of time for the CMJ, DJ20, MKV, 15-m sprint, CoDA, and the Yo-YoIR1 (all p < 0.001; d = 0.57–0.83). Significant group × time interactions were observed for the CMJ, DJ20, MKV, 15-m sprint, CoDA, and the Yo-YoIR1 (all p < 0.05; d = 0.36–0.51). Post-hoc analyses showed similar improvements for PJT-1 and PJT-2 groups in CMJ (Δ10.6%, d = 0.37; and Δ10.1%, d = 0.51, respectively), DJ20 (Δ12.9%, d = 0.47; and Δ13.1%, d = 0.54, respectively), MKV (Δ8.6%, d = 0.52; and Δ9.1%, d = 0.47, respectively), 15-m sprint (Δ8.3%, d = 2.25; and Δ9.5%, d = 2.67, respectively), CoDA (Δ7.5%, d = 1.68; and Δ7.4%, d = 1.16, respectively), and YoYoIR1 (Δ10.3%, d = 0.22; and Δ9.9%, d = 0.26, respectively). No significant pre-post changes were found for CON (all p > 0.05; Δ0.5–4.2%, d = 0.03–0.2). In conclusion, higher PJT exposure in terms of session frequency has no extra effects on female soccer players' physical fitness development when jump volume is equated during a short-term (i.e., 8 weeks) training program. From this, it follows that one PJT session per week combined with regular soccer-specific training appears to be sufficient to induce physical fitness improvements in amateur female soccer players.
Plyometric jump training (PJT) is a frequently used and effective means to improve amateur and elite soccer players' physical fitness. However, it is unresolved how different PJT frequencies per week with equal overall training volume may affect training-induced adaptations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effects of an in-season 8 week PJT with one session vs. two sessions per week and equal training volume on components of physical fitness in amateur female soccer players. A single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants (N = 23; age, 21.4 ± 3.2 years) were randomly assigned to a one session PJT per-week (PJT-1, n = 8), two sessions PJT per-week (PJT-2, n = 8) or an active control group (CON, n = 7). Before and after training, participants performed countermovement jumps (CMJ), drop-jumps from a 20-cm drop-height (DJ20), a maximal kicking velocity test (MKV), the 15-m linear sprint-time test, the Meylan test for the assessment of change of direction ability (CoDA), and the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery endurance test (Yo-YoIR1). Results revealed significant main effects of time for the CMJ, DJ20, MKV, 15-m sprint, CoDA, and the Yo-YoIR1 (all p < 0.001; d = 0.57–0.83). Significant group × time interactions were observed for the CMJ, DJ20, MKV, 15-m sprint, CoDA, and the Yo-YoIR1 (all p < 0.05; d = 0.36–0.51). Post-hoc analyses showed similar improvements for PJT-1 and PJT-2 groups in CMJ (Δ10.6%, d = 0.37; and Δ10.1%, d = 0.51, respectively), DJ20 (Δ12.9%, d = 0.47; and Δ13.1%, d = 0.54, respectively), MKV (Δ8.6%, d = 0.52; and Δ9.1%, d = 0.47, respectively), 15-m sprint (Δ8.3%, d = 2.25; and Δ9.5%, d = 2.67, respectively), CoDA (Δ7.5%, d = 1.68; and Δ7.4%, d = 1.16, respectively), and YoYoIR1 (Δ10.3%, d = 0.22; and Δ9.9%, d = 0.26, respectively). No significant pre-post changes were found for CON (all p > 0.05; Δ0.5–4.2%, d = 0.03–0.2). In conclusion, higher PJT exposure in terms of session frequency has no extra effects on female soccer players' physical fitness development when jump volume is equated during a short-term (i.e., 8 weeks) training program. From this, it follows that one PJT session per week combined with regular soccer-specific training appears to be sufficient to induce physical fitness improvements in amateur female soccer players.
Background
Jump training (JT) can be used to enhance the ability of skeletal muscle to exert maximal force in as short a time as possible. Despite its usefulness as a method of performance enhancement in athletes, only a small number of studies have investigated its effects on muscle power in older adults.
Objectives
The aims of this meta-analysis were to measure the effect of JT on muscular power in older adults (≥ 50 years), and to establish appropriate programming guidelines for this population.
Data Sources
The data sources utilised were Google Scholar, PubMed, and Microsoft Academic.
Study Eligibility Criteria
Studies were eligible for inclusion if they comprised JT interventions in healthy adults (≥ 50 years) who were free of any medical condition that could impair movement.
Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
The inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analyses was used because it allocates a proportionate weight to trials based on the size of their individual standard errors and facilitates analysis while accounting for heterogeneity across studies. Effect sizes (ESs), calculated from a measure of muscular power, were represented by the standardised mean difference and were presented alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Thirteen training groups across nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The magnitude of the main effect was ‘moderate’ (0.66, 95% CI 0.33, 0.98). ESs were larger in non-obese participants (body mass index [BMI] < 30 vs. ≥ 30 kg/m2; 1.03 [95% CI 0.34, 1.73] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]). Among the studies included in this review, just one reported an acute injury, which did not result in the participant ceasing their involvement. JT was more effective in programmes with more than one exercise (range 1–4 exercises; ES = 0.74 [95% CI − 0.49, 1.96] vs. 0.53 [95% CI 0.29, 0.78]), more than two sets per exercise (range 1–4 sets; ES = 0.91 [95% CI 0.04, 1.77] vs. 0.68 [95% CI 0.15, 1.21]), more than three jumps per set (range 1–14 jumps; ES = 1.02 [95% CI 0.16, 1.87] vs. 0.53 [95% CI − 0.03, 1.09]) and more than 25 jumps per session (range 6–200 jumps; ES = 0.88 [95% CI 0.05, 1.70] vs. 0.49 [95% CI 0.14, 0.83]).
Conclusions
JT is safe and effective in older adults. Practitioners should construct varied JT programmes that include more than one exercise and comprise more than two sets per exercise, more than three jumps per set, and 60 s of recovery between sets. An upper limit of three sets per exercise and ten jumps per set is recommended. Up to three training sessions per week can be performed.
Postural balance represents a fundamental movement skill for the successful performance of everyday and sport-related activities. There is ample evidence on the effectiveness of balance training on balance performance in athletic and non-athletic population. However, less is known on potential transfer effects of other training types, such as plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of balance. Given that PJT is a highly dynamic exercise mode with various forms of jump-landing tasks, high levels of postural control are needed to successfully perform PJT exercises. Accordingly, PJT has the potential to not only improve measures of muscle strength and power but also balance. To systematically review and synthetize evidence from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials regarding the effects of PJT on measures of balance in apparently healthy participants. Systematic literature searches were performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. A PICOS approach was applied to define inclusion criteria, (i) apparently healthy participants, with no restrictions on their fitness level, sex, or age, (ii) a PJT program, (iii) active controls (any sport-related activity) or specific active controls (a specific exercise type such as balance training), (iv) assessment of dynamic, static balance pre- and post-PJT, (v) randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. This meta-analysis was computed using the inverse variance random-effects model. The significance level was set at p <0.05. The initial search retrieved 8,251 plus 23 records identified through other sources. Forty-two articles met our inclusion criteria for qualitative and 38 for quantitative analysis (1,806 participants [990 males, 816 females], age range 9–63 years). PJT interventions lasted between 4 and 36 weeks. The median PEDro score was 6 and no study had low methodological quality (≤3). The analysis revealed significant small effects of PJT on overall (dynamic and static) balance (ES = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.32–0.61; p < 0.001), dynamic (e.g., Y-balance test) balance (ES = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.30–0.71; p < 0.001), and static (e.g., flamingo balance test) balance (ES = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31–0.67; p < 0.001). The moderator analyses revealed that sex and/or age did not moderate balance performance outcomes. When PJT was compared to specific active controls (i.e., participants undergoing balance training, whole body vibration training, resistance training), both PJT and alternative training methods showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.534). Specifically, when PJT was compared to balance training, both training types showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.514). Conclusion: Compared to active controls, PJT showed small effects on overall balance, dynamic and static balance. Additionally, PJT produced similar balance improvements compared to other training types (i.e., balance training). Although PJT is widely used in athletic and recreational sport settings to improve athletes' physical fitness (e.g., jumping; sprinting), our systematic review with meta-analysis is novel in as much as it indicates that PJT also improves balance performance. The observed PJT-related balance enhancements were irrespective of sex and participants' age. Therefore, PJT appears to be an adequate training regime to improve balance in both, athletic and recreational settings.
Postural balance represents a fundamental movement skill for the successful performance of everyday and sport-related activities. There is ample evidence on the effectiveness of balance training on balance performance in athletic and non-athletic population. However, less is known on potential transfer effects of other training types, such as plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of balance. Given that PJT is a highly dynamic exercise mode with various forms of jump-landing tasks, high levels of postural control are needed to successfully perform PJT exercises. Accordingly, PJT has the potential to not only improve measures of muscle strength and power but also balance. To systematically review and synthetize evidence from randomized and non-randomized controlled trials regarding the effects of PJT on measures of balance in apparently healthy participants. Systematic literature searches were performed in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. A PICOS approach was applied to define inclusion criteria, (i) apparently healthy participants, with no restrictions on their fitness level, sex, or age, (ii) a PJT program, (iii) active controls (any sport-related activity) or specific active controls (a specific exercise type such as balance training), (iv) assessment of dynamic, static balance pre- and post-PJT, (v) randomized controlled trials and controlled trials. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. This meta-analysis was computed using the inverse variance random-effects model. The significance level was set at p <0.05. The initial search retrieved 8,251 plus 23 records identified through other sources. Forty-two articles met our inclusion criteria for qualitative and 38 for quantitative analysis (1,806 participants [990 males, 816 females], age range 9–63 years). PJT interventions lasted between 4 and 36 weeks. The median PEDro score was 6 and no study had low methodological quality (≤3). The analysis revealed significant small effects of PJT on overall (dynamic and static) balance (ES = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.32–0.61; p < 0.001), dynamic (e.g., Y-balance test) balance (ES = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.30–0.71; p < 0.001), and static (e.g., flamingo balance test) balance (ES = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31–0.67; p < 0.001). The moderator analyses revealed that sex and/or age did not moderate balance performance outcomes. When PJT was compared to specific active controls (i.e., participants undergoing balance training, whole body vibration training, resistance training), both PJT and alternative training methods showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.534). Specifically, when PJT was compared to balance training, both training types showed similar effects on overall (dynamic and static) balance (p = 0.514). Conclusion: Compared to active controls, PJT showed small effects on overall balance, dynamic and static balance. Additionally, PJT produced similar balance improvements compared to other training types (i.e., balance training). Although PJT is widely used in athletic and recreational sport settings to improve athletes' physical fitness (e.g., jumping; sprinting), our systematic review with meta-analysis is novel in as much as it indicates that PJT also improves balance performance. The observed PJT-related balance enhancements were irrespective of sex and participants' age. Therefore, PJT appears to be an adequate training regime to improve balance in both, athletic and recreational settings.
Background
A growing body of literature is available regarding the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of physical fitness (PF) and sport-specific performance (SSP) in-water sports athletes (WSA, i.e. those competing in sports that are practiced on [e.g. rowing] or in [e.g. swimming; water polo] water). Indeed, incoherent findings have been observed across individual studies making it difficult to provide the scientific community and coaches with consistent evidence. As such, a comprehensive systematic literature search should be conducted to clarify the existent evidence, identify the major gaps in the literature, and offer recommendations for future studies.
Aim
To examine the effects of PJT compared with active/specific-active controls on the PF (one-repetition maximum back squat strength, squat jump height, countermovement jump height, horizontal jump distance, body mass, fat mass, thigh girth) and SSP (in-water vertical jump, in-water agility, time trial) outcomes in WSA, through a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies.
Methods
The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2022. According to the PICOS approach, the eligibility criteria were: (population) healthy WSA; (intervention) PJT interventions involving unilateral and/or bilateral jumps, and a minimal duration of ≥ 3 weeks; (comparator) active (i.e. standard sports training) or specific-active (i.e. alternative training intervention) control group(s); (outcome) at least one measure of PF (e.g. jump height) and/or SSP (e.g. time trial) before and after training; and (study design) multi-groups randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to compute the meta-analyses, reporting effect sizes (ES, i.e. Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Certainty or confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), considering its five dimensions: risk of bias in studies, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of publication bias.
Results
A total of 11,028 studies were identified with 26 considered eligible for inclusion. The median PEDro score across the included studies was 5.5 (moderate-to-high methodological quality). The included studies involved a total of 618 WSA of both sexes (330 participants in the intervention groups [31 groups] and 288 participants in the control groups [26 groups]), aged between 10 and 26 years, and from different sports disciplines such as swimming, triathlon, rowing, artistic swimming, and water polo. The duration of the training programmes in the intervention and control groups ranged from 4 to 36 weeks. The results of the meta-analysis indicated no effects of PJT compared to control conditions (including specific-active controls) for in-water vertical jump or agility (ES = − 0.15 to 0.03; p = 0.477 to 0.899), or for body mass, fat mass, and thigh girth (ES = 0.06 to 0.15; p = 0.452 to 0.841). In terms of measures of PF, moderate-to-large effects were noted in favour of the PJT groups compared to the control groups (including specific-active control groups) for one-repetition maximum back squat strength, horizontal jump distance, squat jump height, and countermovement jump height (ES = 0.67 to 1.47; p = 0.041 to < 0.001), in addition to a small effect noted in favour of the PJT for SSP time-trial speed (ES = 0.42; p = 0.005). Certainty of evidence across the included studies varied from very low-to-moderate.
Conclusions
PJT is more effective to improve measures of PF and SSP in WSA compared to control conditions involving traditional sport-specific training as well as alternative training interventions (e.g. resistance training). It is worth noting that the present findings are derived from 26 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality, low-to-moderate impact of heterogeneity, and very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence based on GRADE.
Trial registration The protocol for this systematic review with meta-analysis was published in the Open Science platform (OSF) on January 23, 2022, under the registration doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NWHS3 (internet archive link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-nwhs3-v1).
Background
A growing body of literature is available regarding the effects of plyometric jump training (PJT) on measures of physical fitness (PF) and sport-specific performance (SSP) in-water sports athletes (WSA, i.e. those competing in sports that are practiced on [e.g. rowing] or in [e.g. swimming; water polo] water). Indeed, incoherent findings have been observed across individual studies making it difficult to provide the scientific community and coaches with consistent evidence. As such, a comprehensive systematic literature search should be conducted to clarify the existent evidence, identify the major gaps in the literature, and offer recommendations for future studies.
Aim
To examine the effects of PJT compared with active/specific-active controls on the PF (one-repetition maximum back squat strength, squat jump height, countermovement jump height, horizontal jump distance, body mass, fat mass, thigh girth) and SSP (in-water vertical jump, in-water agility, time trial) outcomes in WSA, through a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled studies.
Methods
The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2022. According to the PICOS approach, the eligibility criteria were: (population) healthy WSA; (intervention) PJT interventions involving unilateral and/or bilateral jumps, and a minimal duration of ≥ 3 weeks; (comparator) active (i.e. standard sports training) or specific-active (i.e. alternative training intervention) control group(s); (outcome) at least one measure of PF (e.g. jump height) and/or SSP (e.g. time trial) before and after training; and (study design) multi-groups randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to compute the meta-analyses, reporting effect sizes (ES, i.e. Hedges’ g) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Certainty or confidence in the body of evidence for each outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), considering its five dimensions: risk of bias in studies, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision, and risk of publication bias.
Results
A total of 11,028 studies were identified with 26 considered eligible for inclusion. The median PEDro score across the included studies was 5.5 (moderate-to-high methodological quality). The included studies involved a total of 618 WSA of both sexes (330 participants in the intervention groups [31 groups] and 288 participants in the control groups [26 groups]), aged between 10 and 26 years, and from different sports disciplines such as swimming, triathlon, rowing, artistic swimming, and water polo. The duration of the training programmes in the intervention and control groups ranged from 4 to 36 weeks. The results of the meta-analysis indicated no effects of PJT compared to control conditions (including specific-active controls) for in-water vertical jump or agility (ES = − 0.15 to 0.03; p = 0.477 to 0.899), or for body mass, fat mass, and thigh girth (ES = 0.06 to 0.15; p = 0.452 to 0.841). In terms of measures of PF, moderate-to-large effects were noted in favour of the PJT groups compared to the control groups (including specific-active control groups) for one-repetition maximum back squat strength, horizontal jump distance, squat jump height, and countermovement jump height (ES = 0.67 to 1.47; p = 0.041 to < 0.001), in addition to a small effect noted in favour of the PJT for SSP time-trial speed (ES = 0.42; p = 0.005). Certainty of evidence across the included studies varied from very low-to-moderate.
Conclusions
PJT is more effective to improve measures of PF and SSP in WSA compared to control conditions involving traditional sport-specific training as well as alternative training interventions (e.g. resistance training). It is worth noting that the present findings are derived from 26 studies of moderate-to-high methodological quality, low-to-moderate impact of heterogeneity, and very low-to-moderate certainty of evidence based on GRADE.
Trial registration The protocol for this systematic review with meta-analysis was published in the Open Science platform (OSF) on January 23, 2022, under the registration doi https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/NWHS3 (internet archive link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-nwhs3-v1).