Methodological Characteristics and Future Directions for Plyometric Jump Training Research: A Scoping Review
- PDF / 926,393 Bytes
- 23 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 14 Downloads / 206 Views
REVIEW ARTICLE
Methodological Characteristics and Future Directions for Plyometric Jump Training Research: A Scoping Review ´ lvarez1 • Antonio Garcı´a-Hermoso2 • Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo1 • Cristian A 5 6,7 4 3 • Abbas Asadi • Helmi Chaabene • Paulo Gentil Robinson Ramı´rez-Ve´lez 8 • 9,10,11 • 12,13 • Jason Moran Cesar Meylan Antonio Garcı´a-de-Alcaraz Javier Sanchez-Sanchez14 • Fabio Y. Nakamura15,16 • Urs Granacher6 • William Kraemer17 • Mikel Izquierdo3,18
•
Ó Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Recently, there has been a proliferation of published articles on the effect of plyometric jump training, including several review articles and meta-analyses. However, these types of research articles are generally of narrow scope. Furthermore, methodological limitations among studies (e.g., a lack of active/passive control groups) prevent the generalization of results, and these factors need to be addressed by researchers. On that basis, the aims of this scoping review were to (1) characterize the Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0870-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
main elements of plyometric jump training studies (e.g., training protocols) and (2) provide future directions for research. From 648 potentially relevant articles, 242 were eligible for inclusion in this review. The main issues identified related to an insufficient number of studies conducted in females, youths, and individual sports (* 24.0, * 37.0, and * 12.0% of overall studies, respectively); insufficient reporting of effect size values and training prescription (* 34.0 and * 55.0% of overall studies, respectively); and studies missing an active/passive control group and randomization (* 40.0 and * 20.0% of overall studies, respectively). Furthermore, plyometric Antonio Garcı´a-de-Alcaraz [email protected]
& Mikel Izquierdo [email protected] Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo [email protected]
Javier Sanchez-Sanchez [email protected]
´ lvarez Cristian A [email protected]
Fabio Y. Nakamura [email protected]
Antonio Garcı´a-Hermoso [email protected]
Urs Granacher [email protected]
Robinson Ramı´rez-Ve´lez [email protected]
William Kraemer [email protected]
Paulo Gentil [email protected] Abbas Asadi [email protected]
1
Universidad de Los Lagos, Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Research Nucleus in Health, Physical Activity and Sport, Osorno, Chile
2
Laboratorio de Ciencias de la Actividad Fı´sica, el Deporte y la Salud, Facultad de Ciencias Me´dicas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, USACH, Santiago, Chile
3
Centro de Estudios para la Medicio´n de la Actividad Fı´sica ‘‘CEMA’’, Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota´, D.C 111221, Colombia
4
Faculdade de Educac¸a˜o Fı´sica e Danc¸a, Universidade Federal de Goias, Goiaˆnia, Brazil
Helmi Chaabene [email protected] J
Data Loading...
