Table 3.

Studies examining effect of training on muscle activation in female athletes.

Study	Intervention/control	Age [years (SD)]	Outcome parameters	Results
Lephart et al., 2005	Plyometric (n = 14)/resistance training (n = 13)	I: 14.5 (1.3) C: 14.2 (1.3)	Jump-landing 3D biomechanics and hip and thigh EMG	Both training groups increased gluteus medius activity before and during landing
Letafatkar et al., 2015	Pertubation training (n = 15)/control (n = 14)	I and C: 24.3 (3.5)	Single leg drop landing EMG of quadriceps and hamstrings	Increased level of co-contraction between quadriceps and hamstrings in the intervention group after intervention
Nagano et al., 2011	Jump and balance training (n = 8)/no control group	I: 19.4 (0.7)	Single leg drop landing 3D biomechanics and quadriceps and hamstrings EMG	Intervention increased pre activity hamstring activation, but not H/Q-ratio
Wilderman et al., 2009	Agility training (n = 15)/control group (n = 15)	I: 21.1 (3.6) C: 21.1 (1.8)	Sidecutting 3D kinematics and quadriceps and hamstrings EMG	Intervention group increased medial hamstring activation during ground contact
Zebis et al., 2008	Balance+jump+landing (n = 20), compare control season vs. intervention season	I: 26 (3)	Sidecutting EMG of hip thigh and shank muscles	No change during control season but reduction in gluteus medialis pre activity and increase in medial hamstring activity following the intervention protocol
Zebis et al., 2016	Balance+jump+landing (n = 20)/control (n = 20)	I: 15.9 (0.4) C: 15.6 (0.5)	Sidecutting 3D biomechanics and EMG of quadriceps and hamstring	After intervention reduced VL-ST EMG difference was showed during the pre-landing phase for the intervention group

Only muscle activation study data are summarized.

VM, m.vastus medialis; VL, m.vastus lateralis; ST, m.semitendinosus.