Abstract
Plyometric training (PT) enhances soccer performance, particularly vertical jump. However, the effectiveness of PT depends on various factors. A systematic search of the research literature was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effects of PT on countermovement jump (CMJ) height in soccer players. Ten studies were obtained through manual and electronic journal searches (up to April 2017). Significant differences were observed when compared: (1) PT group vs. control group (ES=0.85; 95% CI 0.47–1.23; I2=68.71%; p<0.001), (2) male vs. female soccer players (Q=4.52; p=0.033), (3) amateur vs. high-level players (Q=6.56; p=0.010), (4) single session volume (<120 jumps vs. ≥120 jumps; Q=6.12, p=0.013), (5) rest between repetitions (5 s vs. 10 s vs. 15 s vs. 30 s; Q=19.10, p<0.001), (6) rest between sets (30 s vs. 60 s vs. 90 s vs. 120 s vs. 240 s; Q=19.83, p=0.001) and (7) and overall training volume (low: <1600 jumps vs. high: ≥1600 jumps; Q=5.08, p=0.024). PT is an effective form of training to improve vertical jump performance (i.e., CMJ) in soccer players. The benefits of PT on CMJ performance are greater for interventions of longer rest interval between repetitions (30 s) and sets (240 s) with higher volume of more than 120 jumps per session and 1600 jumps in total. Gender and competitive level differences should be considered when planning PT programs in soccer players.
Keywords: Stretch-shortening cycle, Meta-analysis, Jump height, Soccer
Specifications Table
| Subject area | Sports sciences |
| More specific subject area | Sports physiology |
| Type of data | Raw and analyzed |
| How data was acquired | Data were acquired from articles included in the current meta-analysis. |
| Data format | Table |
| Experimental factors | Data concerning type of intervention, gender, age, and competitive levels, volume of training sessions based on number of jumps per single session, types of plyometric exercises, training program duration in weeks, weekly frequency of training, rest interval between repetitions, rest interval between sets, and overall training volume were extracted from the included studies. |
| Experimental features | Meta-analysis according to different moderator variables (type of intervention, gender, age, and competitive levels, volume of training sessions based on number of jumps per single session, types of plyometric exercises, training program duration in weeks, weekly frequency of training, rest interval between repetitions, rest interval between sets, and overall training volume) were performed. |
| Data source location | NA |
| Data accessibility | Data are within this article. |
Value of the data
-
•
Largest plyometric training effects were verified in female and high-level soccer players compared to male and amateur counterparts, respectively.
-
•
Higher volume of more than 120 jumps per session leads to greater effect of plyometric training on jump performance (countermovement jump (CMJ) without arm swing) when compared to less than 120 jumps per session.
-
•
Longer rest interval between repetitions (30 s) and sets (240 s) provide larger improvements in jump performance than shorter rest.
-
•
The benefits of plyometric training on jump performance are greater in participants who performed more than 1600 jumps in total than who performed less than 1600 jumps.
1. Data
Soccer is a most widely practiced sport around the world that combines cyclic and acyclic movements in competitive success [1], [2]. However, soccer players perform numerous explosive movements like kicking, tackling, jumping, turning, sprinting, and changing pace and directions during the match [2]. For instance, many athletic and technical movements in soccer require rapid rates of force production or power in addition to high levels of coordination and reactivity, which called plyometrics [3], [4].
When jump height performance was evaluated after plyometric training (PT), results from the literature were contradictory [3], [5]. For instance, the effectiveness of PT depends on various factors, such as age [6], competitive level [3], training volume [7], [8], and types of plyometric drills [3], [5], [9]. Therefore, the aim of this review was to examine the influence of various factors on the effectiveness of PT on jump height (i.e., countermovement jump (CMJ) without arm swing) using a meta-analysis approach.
2. Experimental design, materials and methods
2.1. Design, materials and methods
2.1.1. Search strategy
The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Fig. 1, [10]). A systematic search of the research literature was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effects of PT on jump height in soccer players. Studies were obtained through manual and electronic journal searches (up to April 2017). The present review used the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS, SportDiscus, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect. Electronic databases were searched using keywords and/or MeSH terms: “plyometric” or “plyometrics” alone or together with “soccer”, “muscular power” and “jump”. Moreover, manual searches of relevant journals and reference lists obtained from articles were conducted. The present meta-analysis includes studies published in journals that have presented original research data on healthy human subjects. No age and gender were imposed during the search stage.
Fig. 1.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow-chart.
2.1.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included in the review if they met all the following Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome(s) (PICO) criteria:
-
(1)
Population: studies recruiting male and female amateur (i.e., amateur, healthy, regional) and/or high-level (i.e., high-level, professional, national, 2nd league, 1st league) soccer players of any age as participants;
-
(2)
Intervention or Exposure:
(a) Investigations studying the effects of PT on CMJ height in soccer players;
(b) Studies involving a control group against which an intervention could be compared;
-
(3)
Comparison: CMJ height changes after PT according to the type of intervention, gender, age, and competitive level, volume of training sessions based on number of jumps per single session, types of plyometric exercises, training program duration in weeks, weekly frequency of training, rest interval between repetitions, rest interval between sets, and overall training volume;
-
(4)
Outcome(s): CMJ height without arm swing after PT;
-
(5)
Design: original investigations published in peer-reviewed journals;
-
(6)
Language filter: English.
Studies were excluded if:
-
(1)
Reviews, comments, opinions and commentaries, interviews, letter to editor, editorial, posters, conference abstracts, book chapters, and books were excluded; available reviews have been anyways scanned for increasing the chance of including potentially relevant articles;
-
(2)
Assessing performance changed after PT combined with other intervention (strength or sprint training);
-
(3)
Studies not employing true experimental designs and valid and reliable measurements;
-
(4)
Studies including enough data to calculate effect size;
-
(5)
Lacking quantitative information and details.
2.1.3. Identification of the moderator variables
Two authors independently extracted data using a structured form. Because of the high number of variables that may affect training effectiveness, independent variables were grouped into the following areas: 1) type of intervention: plyometric group vs. control group; 2) subject characteristics: gender (male vs. female), age (<15 vs. between 15 and 21 vs. ≥21 years), and competitive levels (amateur vs. high-level); 3) program exercises: volume of training sessions based on number of jumps per single session (low: <120 vs. high: ≥120 jumps); types of plyometric exercises (single vs. combined exercises [two or more than two exercises]); and 3) program elements: a) training program duration in weeks (<8 vs. ≥8 weeks); b) weekly frequency of training (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 sessions per week); c) rest interval between repetitions (5 s vs. 10 s vs. 15 s vs. 30 s); d) rest interval between sets (30 s vs. 60 s vs. 90 s vs. 120 s vs. 240 s); e) overall training volume (low: <1600 jumps and high: ≥1600 jumps: calculated as total number of jumps per study).
2.1.4. Statistical analyses
For the meta-analysis part, data were extracted from the included studies using a standardized documentation form. For preliminary analysis the effect estimates were computed as standardized mean differences of experimental and control group with their 95% confidence interval (CIs). Meta-analyses were carried out using the program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 2 [11]. Statistical heterogeneity in our meta-analysis was assessed using the Q and I2 statistics. The I2 measure of inconsistency was used to examine between-study variability; values of 25, 50 and 75% represent low, moderate and high statistical heterogeneity, respectively [12]. Although the heterogeneity of effects in our meta-analysis ranged from 0% to 76.09% (see results section), we decided to apply a random-effects model of meta-analysis in all comparisons, in order to determine the pooled effect of PT on CMJ height. Possible publication bias was visually inspected with a funnel plot, looking at asymmetry of the graph. In addition, regression analysis (method of moments) were used in order to investigate possible predictors of observed effect size (ES) among aforementioned continuous variables (age of athletes, training program duration, weekly frequency, rest intervals between repetitions and sets, single session and overall training program volume. The magnitudes of the ESs were considered either trivial (<0.35), small (0.35–0.80), moderate (0.80–1.50), or large (>1.5) [13]. Furthermore, a regression analysis was used to verify the effects of potential moderator variables on the ES of study results. The significance level of p<0.05 was used.
The search strategies yielded a preliminary pool of 921 possible papers. The full text of 36 articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility against the inclusion criteria. After a careful review of their full texts, 26 articles were excluded and the remaining 10 articles were eligible for inclusion in the review (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Table 1.
Descriptive analysis of each plyometric study.
| Study | Group | Gender | N | Age | Level | Type of jump | Weeks | Sessions per week | Number of jumps | Rest between rep (s) | Rest between sets (s) | CMJ (cm) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre | Post | ||||||||||||
| Chelly et al. [14] | PG | M | 12 | 19±0.7 | H | C | 8 | 2 | 40–100 | 5 | NR | 40±3 | 41±3 |
| CG | M | 11 | 19±0.7 | H | 8 | 39±2 | 39±2 | ||||||
| Fábrica et al. [15] | PG | NR | 20 | 24.7±3.1 | H | C | 6 | 3 | 150–330 | NR | NR | 41.4± 2.5 | 44.4±1.7 |
| CG | 20 | 24.7±3.1 | H | 6 | 41.3±2.0 | 41.5±2.1 | |||||||
| Manouras et al. [16] | HPG | M | 10 | 19.10±5.75 | A | C | 8 | 1 | 60–110 | NR | 60–120 | 30.7±3.00 | 31.7±2.9 |
| VPG | M | 10 | 20.75±6.14 | A | C | 8 | 1 | 60–110 | NR | 60–120 | 29.2±7.10 | 30.9±6.7 | |
| CG | M | 10 | 20.00±3.5 | A | 8 | 32.1±6.80 | 32.5±6.8 | ||||||
| Meylan and Malatesta [17] | PG | M | 14 | 13.3±0.6 | A | C | 8 | 2 | 48–192 | 10 | 90 | 34.6±4.4 | 37.2±4.5 |
| CG | M | 11 | 13.3±0.6 | A | 8 | 30.9±3.1 | 29.6±1.9 | ||||||
| Negra et al. [18] | PG | M | 11 | 12.8±0.3 | A | C | 4 | 2 | 112–280 | 10 | 90 | 22.89±6.06 | 24.35±5.02 |
| CG | M | 11 | 12.7±0.3 | A | 4 | 21.13±2.96 | 22.01±3.59 | ||||||
| PG | M | 11 | 12.8±0.3 | A | C | 8 | 2 | 112–280 | 10 | 90 | 22.89±6.06 | 26.57±5.56 | |
| CG | M | 11 | 12.7±0.3 | A | 8 | 21.13±2.96 | 23.75±3.34 | ||||||
| PG | M | 11 | 12.8±0.3 | A | C | 12 | 2 | 112–280 | 10 | 90 | 22.89±6.06 | 28.17±5.93 | |
| CG | M | 11 | 12.7±0.3 | A | 12 | 21.13±2.96 | 21.99±1.88 | ||||||
| Ozbar [19] | PG | F | 10 | 19.3±1.6 | H | C | 10 | 2 | 120–250 | NR | NR | 40.1±1.9 | 48.6±1.6 |
| CG | F | 10 | 19.3±1.6 | H | 10 | 39.7±1.8 | 42.3±1.9 | ||||||
| Ozbar et al. [20] | PG | F | 9 | 15–22 | H | C | 8 | 1 | 90–220 | NR | NR | 39.8±4.5 | 46.8±2.2 |
| CG | F | 9 | 15–22 | H | 8 | 35.4±4.6 | 37.9±3.9 | ||||||
| Ramirez-Campillo et al. [21] | PG 30 | M | 13 | 10.4±2.0 | A | S | 7 | 2 | 60 | 15 | 30 | 22.2±4.1 | 24.0±5.6 |
| PG 60 | M | 13 | 10.4±2.3 | A | S | 7 | 2 | 60 | 15 | 60 | 21.9±2.1 | 23.9±3.1 | |
| PG 120 | M | 11 | 10.3±2.3 | A | S | 7 | 2 | 60 | 15 | 120 | 21.7±4.4 | 23.5±5.4 | |
| CG | M | 14 | 10.1±2.0 | A | 7 | 22.1±4.9 | 21.9±4.7 | ||||||
| Ramírez-Campillo et al. [22] | FCG | F | 19 | 20.5±2.5 | A | 6 | 15 | 60 | 26.6±4.8 | 26.6±4.3 | |||
| FPG | F | 19 | 22.4±2.4 | A | C | 6 | 2 | 80–120 | 15 | 60 | 26.7±5.5 | 29.4±5.8 | |
| MCG | M | 21 | 20.8±2.7 | A | 6 | 15 | 60 | 33.2±3.9 | 32.8±3.8 | ||||
| MPG | M | 21 | 20.4±2.8 | A | C | 6 | 2 | 80–120 | 15 | 60 | 35.3±3.3 | 37.6±4.0 | |
| Sedano Campo et al. [23] | PG | F | 10 | 23.0±3.2 | H | C | 6 | 3 | 200–330 | 30 | 240 | 25.6±1.0 | 27.8±0.9 |
| CG | F | 10 | 22.8±2.1 | H | 6 | 26.2±0.9 | 24.7±1.0 | ||||||
A: amateur; C: combined jumps; CMJ: countermovement jump; F: female; FCG: female control group; FPG: female plyometric group; H: high-level; HPG: horizontal plyometric training group; M: male; MCG: male control group; MPG: male plyometric group; NR: not reported; rep: repetitions; S: single jump; Time: seconds(s); VPG: vertical plyometric training group.
2.2. Type of intervention (plyometric training group vs. control group)
The meta-analyzed effect of PT was moderate on CMJ height (ES=0.85; 95% CI 0.47–1.23; I2=68.71%; p<0.001), when compared to control group (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Effects of plyometric training vs. control group on maximal CMJ height. Std: Standard; diff: difference; CI: confidence interval.
2.3. Gender (male vs. female)
Greater effect of PT was observed for females compared to male soccer players (Q=4.52; p=0.033) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Effects of plyometric training considering different grouping variables.
| Independent variables | ES | SD | 95% CI | p | I2 (%) | df | Q value and (p) between groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 4.52 (0.033) | ||||||
| Female | 2.20 | 1.59 | 0.64 to 3.77 | 0.006 | 88.30 | 3 | |
| Male | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0.03 to 1.68 | <0.001 | 0.00 | 10 | |
| Age of athletes | |||||||
| <15 years | 0.53 | 0.27 | 0.22 to 0.84 | 0.001 | 0.00 | 6 | |
| 15–21 | 1.23 | 1.47 | 0.01 to 2.45 | 0.049 | 83.39 | 3 | |
| ≥21 | 1.17 | 1.49 | 0.34 to 2.01 | 0.006 | 81.94 | 4 | 2.98 (0.225) |
| Competitive levels of athlete | |||||||
| Amateur | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.26 to 0.73 | <0.001 | 0 | 10 | 6.56 (0.010) |
| High level | 1.98 | 1.46 | 0.87 to 3.09 | 0.025 | 83.31 | 4 | |
| Type of exercise | |||||||
| Single | 0.98 | 1.21 | 0.51 to 1.44 | <0.001 | 73.74 | 12 | |
| Combined | 0.45 | 0.09 | 0.00 to 0.89 | 0.051 | 0.00 | 2 | 2.58 (0.108) |
| Single session volume | |||||||
| <120 jumps | 0.45 | 0.19 | 0.18 to 0.71 | 0.001 | 72.57 | 7 | |
| ≥120 jumps | 1.44 | 1.36 | 0.70 to 1.03 | <0.001 | 68.77 | 7 | 6.12 (0.013) |
| Training program duration | |||||||
| <8 weeks | 0.84 | 1.23 | 0.32 to 1.37 | 0.002 | 72.57 | 7 | |
| ≥8 weeks | 0.87 | 1.08 | 0.29 to 1.46 | 0.003 | 68.77 | 7 | 0.00 (0.945) |
| Weekly frequency of training | |||||||
| 1 per week | 0.53 | 0.73 | −0.25 to 1.31 | 0.181 | 53.04 | 2 | 2.62 (0.270) |
| 2 per week | 2.00 | 0.90 | 0.32 to 1.02 | <0.001 | 51.62 | 10 | |
| 3 per week | 3.00 | 1.71 | 0.22 to 4.95 | 0.032 | 88.00 | 1 | |
| Rest between repetitions | |||||||
| 5 s | 0.39 | a | −0.44 to 1.21 | 0.356 | 0.00 | 0 | 19.10 (<0.001) |
| 10 s | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.11to 1.09 | 0.016 | 24.76 | 3 | |
| 15 s | 0.53 | 0.12 | 0.21to 0.85 | 0.001 | 0.00 | 4 | |
| 30 s | 3.89 | a | 2.40to 5.38 | <0.001 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| Rest between sets | |||||||
| 30 s | 0.39 | a | -0.37to 1.15 | 0.318 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 60 s | 0.60 | 0.09 | 0.21to 0.98 | 0.003 | 6.55 | 2 | |
| 90 s | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.09to 0.82 | 0.014 | 0.00 | 5 | |
| 120 s | 0.40 | a | -0.40 to 1.20 | 0.327 | 0.00 | 0 | |
| 240 s | 3.89 | a | 2.40 to 5.38 | <0.001 | 0.00 | 0 | 19.83 (0.001) |
| Overall training program volume | |||||||
| Low <1600 jumps | 0.52 | 0.40 | 0.28 to 0.76 | <0.001 | 0.00 | 10 | |
| High ≥1600 jumps | 1.55 | 1.57 | 0.72 to 3.00 | 0.001 | 85.14 | 4 | 5.08 (0.024) |
CI confidence interval, ES effect size, I2 index of heterogeneity, N number, P significance level, SD standard deviation
No variance, because only one ES was included in analysis.
2.4. Age of athletes
No significant difference was observed between age groups (<15 vs. 15–21 vs. ≥21 years; Q=2.98, p=0.225) in CMJ height after PT.
2.5. Competitive level (amateur vs. high-level)
Significant difference was found between high-level soccer players compared to amateur counterparts (Q=6.56; p=0.010) in CMJ height after PT.
2.6. Types of plyometric exercises (single vs. combined exercises)
There was no significant difference in magnitude of ES when studies with single or combined exercises (Q=2.58; p=0.108) were compared.
2.7. Single training session volume
There was significant effect of number of jumps per training session, where higher volume of more than 120 jumps leads to greater effect when compared to less than 120 jumps per training session (Q=6.12; p=0.013) (Table 2). In addition, regression analysis confirmed preliminary results, showing that number of jumps as significant predictor of the ES (Z=2.998; p=0.003) (Table 3; Fig. 3).
Table 3.
Meta regression for training variables of different subscales to predict plyometric training effects on CMJ height.
| Beta Coefficient | Standard error | 95% lower CI | 95% upper CI | Z value | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of athletes | 0.0670 | 0.039 | −0.010 | 0.144 | 1.696 | 0.090 |
| Training programme duration | 0.0899 | 0.113 | −0.132 | 0.311 | 0.795 | 0.427 |
| Weekly frequency of training | 0.7402 | 0.337 | 0.079 | 1.401 | 2.194 | 0.028 |
| Rest interval between reps | 0.0992 | 0.034 | 0.032 | 0.167 | 2.885 | 0.004 |
| Rest interval between sets | 0.0124 | 0.004 | 0.005 | 0.020 | 3.079 | 0.002 |
| Single session volume | 0.0078 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.013 | 2.998 | 0.003 |
| Overall training programme volume | 0.0004 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 3.339 | <0.001 |
Fig. 3.
Meta-regression performed with weekly frequency as moderator. Std: Standard; diff: difference.
2.8. Program duration (<8 vs. ≥ 8 weeks)
No significant difference was observed between <8 vs. ≥ 8 weeks duration comparison (Q=0.00; p=0.945).
2.9. Frequency of weekly sessions (1 vs. 2 vs. 3 sessions per week)
Weekly frequency of training showed heterogeneous effects ranging from small (ES=0.53) to large (ES=3.00) for one to three trainings per week, respectively, without significant difference between them (Q=2.62; p=0.270). However, regression analysis showed that weekly frequency of training was significant predictor (Z=2.194; p=0.028) of CMJ height gains following PT (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4.
Meta-regression performed with single session volume as moderator. Std: Standard; diff: difference.
2.10. Rest between repetitions (5 s vs. 10 s vs. 15 s vs. 30 s)
Meta-analyzed effect of PT regarding different rest periods between repetitions yielded heterogeneous effects ranging from small (ES=0.39; 5 s) to large (ES=1.06; 30 s) (Table 2). Compared to all other intervals, 30 s of rest between repetitions showed significant difference in gains (p<0.001, Q ranging from 16.85 to 18.68 for 10 s and 15 s intervals). In addition, regression analysis have shown that rest interval between repetitions is significant predictor of observed effect (Z=2.885; p=0.004) (Table 3; Fig. 5).
Fig. 5.
Meta-regression performed with rest interval between repetitions (reps) as moderator. Std: Standard; diff: difference.
2.11. Rest between sets (30 s vs. 60 s vs. 90 s vs. 120 s vs. 240 s)
The rest between sets showed diversity of effect ranging from small (ES=0.39, 30 s) to large (ES=3.89; 240 s). Compared to all other intervals significant difference was observed only for rest of 240 s between sets (p<0.001, Q ranging from 16.384 to 19.233). In addition, regression analysis have shown that rest interval between sets is significant predictor of observed effect (Z=3,079; p=0.002) (Table 3; Fig. 6).
Fig. 6.
Meta-regression performed with rest interval between sets as moderator. Std: Standard; diff: difference.
2.12. Overall training program volume
Marginally significant effect of training volume was observed among analyzed studies, where more than 1600 jumps showed greater ES (ES=1.55) compared to less than 1600 jumps per study (ES=0.52). Additional regression analysis indicated overall training volume as significant predictor of observed effects (Z=3.339; p=0.001) (Table 3; Fig. 7).
Fig. 7.
Meta-regression performed with overall training program volume as moderator. Std: Standard; diff: difference.
Despite the important conclusions that can be drawn from this meta-analysis concerning the effectiveness of PT on jump performance, it is important to note that some limitations should be considered. For example, there was a considerable amount of small numbers of included studies, and this can be due to the high-quality standards used to select studies (e.g., randomized-controlled), and the highly specific focus of the data (i.e., CMJ, in soccer). This leads to bias or limitations in the generalization of results.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to declare that no sources of funding were used in the preparation of this review. They would also like to affirm that they have no conflict of interest that is directly or indirectly relevant to the content of the present review.
Footnotes
Transparency document associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.09.054.
Transparency document. Supplementary material
Transparency document
References
- 1.Slimani M., Bragazzi N.L., Tod D., Dellal A., Hue O., Cheour F., Taylor L., Chamari K. Do cognitive training strategies improve motor and positive psychological skills development in soccer players? Insights from a systematic review. J. Sports Sci. 2016;34:2338–2349. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1254809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Stolen T., Chamari K., Castagna C., Wisløff U. Physiology of soccer: an update. Sports Med. 2005;35:501–536. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200535060-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Slimani M., Chamari K., Miarka B., Del Vecchio F.B., Chéour F. Effects of plyometric training on physical fitness in team sport athletes: a systematic review. J. Hum. Kinet. 2016;14(53):231–247. doi: 10.1515/hukin-2016-0026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ramirez-Campillo R., Meylan C., Alvarez C., Henriquez-Olguin C., Martinez C., Canas-Jamett R., Andrade D.C., Izquierdo M. Effects of in-season low-volume high-intensity plyometric training on explosive actions and endurance of young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014;28:1335–1342. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.de Villarreal E.S., Kellis E., Kraemer W.J., Izquierdo M. Determining variables of plyometric training for improving vertical jump height performance: a meta-analysis. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009;23:495–506. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318196b7c6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Moran J.J., Sandercock G.R., Ramírez-Campillo R., Meylan C.M., Collison J.A., Parry D.A. Age-related variation in male youth athletes' countermovement jump after plyometric training: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2017;31:552–565. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ramírez-Campillo R., Andrade D.C., Izquierdo M. Effects of plyometric training volume and training surface on explosive strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013;27:2714–2722. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318280c9e9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ramírez-Campillo R., Henríquez-Olguín C., Burgos C., Andrade D.C., Zapata D., Martínez C., Álvarez C., Baez E.I., Castro-Sepúlveda M., Peñailillo L., Izquierdo M. Effect of progressive volume-based overload during plyometric training on explosive and endurance performance in young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015;29:1884–1893. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Ramírez-Campillo R., Gallardo F., Henriquez-Olguín C., Meylan C.M., Martínez C., Álvarez C., Caniuqueo A., Cadore E.L., Izquierdo M. Effect of vertical, horizontal, and combined plyometric training on explosive, balance, and endurance performance of young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015;29:1784–1795. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009;151:264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Borenstein M., Hedges L., Higgins J., Rothstein H. Biostat Inc; Englewood, New Jersey: 2005. Comprehensive Meta-analysis, Version 2. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Higgins J.P.T., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. Br. Med. J. 2003;327:557660. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rhea M.R., Alvar B.A., Burkett L.N., Ball S.D. A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2003;35:456–464. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000053727.63505.D4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Chelly M.S., Ghenem M.A., Abid K., Hermassi H., Tabka Z., Shephard R.J. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training program on leg power, jump- and sprint performance of soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010;24:2670–2676. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e2728f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fabrica G., Lopez F., Souto A. Effects of power training in mechanical stiffness of the lower limbs in soccer players. Rev. Andal. Med. Deporte. 2015;8:145–149. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Manouras N., Papanikolaou Z., Karatrantou K., Kouvarakis P., Gerodimos V. The efficacy of vertical vs. horizontal plyometric training on speed, jumping performance and agility in soccer players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2016;11:702–709. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Meylan C., Malatesta D. Effects of in-season plyometric training within soccer practice on explosive actions of young players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009;23:2605–2613. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b1f330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Negra Y. Effectiveness and time-course adaptation of resistance training vs. plyometric training in prepubertal soccer players. J. Sport Health Sci. 2016 doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2016.07.008. (Epub ahead of print) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ozbar N. Effects of plyometric training on explosive strength, speed and kicking speed in female soccer players. Anthropologist. 2015;19:333–339. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Ozbar N., Ates S., Agopyaan A. The effect of 8-week plyometric training on leg power, jump and sprint performance in female soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014;28:2888–2894. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Ramirez-Campillo R., Andrade D.C., Alvarez C., Henríquez-Olguín C., Martínez C., Báez-Sanmartín E., Silva-Urra J., Burgos C., Izquierdo M. The effects of interset rest on adaptation to 7 weeks of explosive training in young soccer players. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2014;13:287–296. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ramirez-Campillo R., Vergara-Pedreros M., Henríquez-Olguín C., Martínez-Salazar C., Alvarez C., Nakamura F.Y., Fuente C.I. De. La, Caniuqueo A., Alonso-Martinez A.M., Izquierdo M. Effects of plyometric training on maximal-intensity exercise and endurance in male and female soccer players. J. Sports Sci. 2016;34:687–693. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1068439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sedano Campo S., Vaeyens R., Philippaerts R.M., Redondo J.C., De Benito A.M., Cuadrado C. Effects of lower-limb plyometric training on body composition, explosive strength, and kicking speed in female soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009;23:1714–1722. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b3f537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Transparency document