Department of Physical Education and Sport, Jozef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, Poland.
Department of Sports for All, Jozef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, Poland.
J Sports Sci Med. 2020 May 1;19(2):347-357. eCollection 2020 Jun.
Traditional, assisted and resisted plyometrics are considered to be effective training methods for improving vertical jump performance. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare effectiveness of traditional, assisted and resisted plyometric methods on vertical jumping ability in adults. Available literature was searched using MEDLINE (via EBSCO), SPORTDiscus (via EBSCO), Scopus and Web of Science databases. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the PEDro scale. Peer-reviewed studies were accepted only if they met all eligibility criteria: (a) healthy adults mean age > 18 years (b) training program based on plyometric exercises (c) the study reported on vertical jump height for the countermovement jump or drop jump performance. Of the 5092 articles identified, 17 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Both funnel plot analysis and Egger's test (p = 0.04) indicated publication bias for the comparison of resisted plyometrics and control condition. No publication bias was found for the other meta-analyses (p > 0.05). The effects of the traditional and assisted plyometric methods, when compared with the control condition (a non-plyometric condition), on jump height were moderate (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.99, p < 0.0001; SMD = 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.20, p = 0.006, respectively). The effects of the resisted plyometric methods, when compared with the control condition, on a jump height was small (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.79, p = 0.002). There were no significant differences between the training effects of the assisted and traditional plyometric interventions on jump height (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI -1.66 to 2.91, p = 0.59), nor between the resisted and traditional plyometric training programs (SMD = 0.2, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.23, p = 0.86). Traditional, assisted and resisted plyometric methods are effective training modalities for augmenting vertical jump performance in healthy adults. Resisted and assisted plyometric methods are equally effective as the traditional plyometric method in improving vertical jumping ability in healthy adults.
传统的、辅助的和抗阻的增强式训练被认为是提高垂直跳跃表现的有效训练方法。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较传统的、辅助的和抗阻的增强式训练方法对成年人垂直跳跃能力的效果。使用 MEDLINE（通过 EBSCO）、SPORTDiscus（通过 EBSCO）、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库搜索可用文献。使用 PEDro 量表评估研究的方法学质量。只有符合所有入选标准的同行评审研究才被接受：(a) 健康成年人，平均年龄>18 岁；(b) 基于增强式训练的训练计划；(c) 研究报告了反跳式或跳落式垂直跳跃的高度。在确定的 5092 篇文章中，有 17 项研究纳入了定性和定量分析。漏斗图分析和 Egger 检验（p = 0.04）均表明，与对照组相比，抗阻增强式训练的比较存在发表偏倚。其他荟萃分析（p>0.05）未发现发表偏倚。与对照组（非增强式条件）相比，传统和辅助增强式训练方法对跳跃高度的影响为中度（SMD = 0.68，95%CI 0.37 至 0.99，p<0.0001；SMD = 0.70，95%CI 0.20 至 1.20，p=0.006）。与对照组相比，抗阻增强式训练方法对跳跃高度的影响较小（SMD = 0.48，95%CI 0.17 至 0.79，p=0.002）。辅助和传统增强式训练干预对跳跃高度的训练效果之间没有显著差异（SMD = 0.62，95%CI-1.66 至 2.91，p=0.59），抗阻和传统增强式训练方案之间也没有显著差异（SMD = 0.2，95%CI-0.19 至 0.23，p=0.86）。传统的、辅助的和抗阻的增强式训练方法是增强健康成年人垂直跳跃表现的有效训练方式。抗阻和辅助增强式训练方法在改善健康成年人垂直跳跃能力方面与传统增强式训练方法同样有效。
