↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Plyometric-Jump Training Effects on Physical Fitness and Sport-Specific Performance According to Maturity: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40798-023-00568-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo, Andrew Sortwell, Jason Moran, José Afonso, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Rhodri S. Lloyd, Jon L. Oliver, Jason Pedley, Urs Granacher

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 38 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 21 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Unspecified 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 39 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#17,645,910
of 25,866,425 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#555
of 628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,696
of 425,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,866,425 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.