Table 2.

Summary of research that has investigated the effects of balance, dynamic core stability control training and perturbation-enhanced plyometric training on COD biomechanics

Study	Subjects	Training intervention	COD task	Results (post-intervention)	Comments
Balance training
Oliveira et al. [67]	26 healthy men—recreational athletes	6-week balance training—4 × a week (30 mins) (n = 13) plus a CG (n = 13)	90° cut and 1 unexpected perturbed cut (10 cm translation) ~ 2.5 m.s−1	Balance group during perturbed cutting ↓ peak KAMs (33 ± 25%, p < 0.03, η2 = 0.487) ↑ activation of trunk and proximal hip muscles ↑ burst duration prior (23 ± 11%) to landing (p < 0.02, η2 = 0.798) ↔ changes in peak force, approach and exit velocity (p < 0.05)	Presents findings for the perturbed trial only, and this was for only 1 trial Low approach velocity
Cochrane et al. [68]	Fifty male AFL players	Allocated either to a CG or to one of four 12-wk training programs: Machine weights Free weights Balance Machine weights and balances	30˚ and 60˚ side-step, 30˚ XOC PP and UP and—light delay ~4–4.5 m.s−1 Preferred leg	Balance group ↑ flexor/extensor contraction ratio − 18% ↑ flexor muscle activation ↑ biceps femoris/semimembranosus co-contraction ratio ↓ quadricep activation Strength training ↓ flexor/extensor contraction ratio and ↑ quadricep activation	Implications on performance unclear Controlled approach velocity
Cochrane et al. [63]	Fifty male AFL players	Allocated either to a CG or to one of four 12-wk training programs: Machine weights Free weights Balance Machine weights and balance	30˚ and 60˚ side-step, 30˚ XOC PP and UP and—light delay ~4–4.5 m.s−1 Preferred leg	Change in moments across WA in all manoeuvres (Mean and SD not provided, thus ES cannot be calculated): Balance ↓ peak KAM (p < 0.001, 62%) and ↓ peak IRM (p < 0.001, 32%) in all manoeuvres Free weights ↔ peak KAM and IRM Machine Weights ↓ peak KAM (p < 0.05, 27%) Machine weights + balance training ↔ peak KAM and IRM CG ↑ peak KAM (p < 0.05, 26%)	Did not establish reliability, measurement error or meaningful difference Implications on performance unclear Controlled approach velocity
Dynamic core stability training
Whyte et al. [66]	31 male varsity footballers	6-week dynamic trunk control/core stability programme—3 × a week (n = 15) plus a CG (n = 16)	45° side-step PP and UP	IG ↑ internal hip extensor moment (p = 0.017, η2 = 0.079,24–28% of stance) for PP ↓ internal knee varus moment (p = 0.026, η2 = 0.076, 18– 25% of stance) for PP ↓ knee external rotator moment (p = 0.041, η2 = 0.066, 15– 20% of stance) for PP ↓ posterior GRF for both cuts (p ≤ 0.030, η2 = 0.074–0.081) for PP and UP (11–30% and 15–19% of stance, respectively) ↔ in trunk and pelvic kinematics (Descriptive data not provided, thus ES cannot be calculated)	Use of SPM Contains CG
Perturbation-enhanced plyometric training
Weltin et al. [69]	28 females (soccer, handball, and basketball)* 4 withdrawals:	Perturbation-enhanced plyometric training (PPT) (n = 12): lateral reactive jumps—4-week training—3 times a week Plyometric only—CG (N = 12)	45° side-step UP—4.0 ± 0.2 m.s−1	PPT ↓ trunk rotation 7.2° (ES = 1.14), ↓ step width (p = 0.003, ES = 0.88), and ↑ pelvic rotation 4.1° (ES = 0.45) ↓ KAM 0.05 Nm/Kg, CG ↑ 0.14 Nm/kg (SD not provide, thus ES cannot be calculated) ↔ lateral trunk lean (ES = 0.26)	Perturbation-enhanced method is unfeasible to implement in real world as it required motored platform

↑ increase, ↓ decrease, ↔ no significant change, GRF ground reaction force, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, ES effect size, CG control group, IG intervention group, SPM statistical parametric mapping, PPT perturbation and plyometric training, KAM knee abduction moment, IRM internal rotation moment, XOC crossover cut