Table 3.

Summary of research that has investigated the effects of a mixed training programmes and combined programmes on COD biomechanics

Study	Subjects	Training intervention	COD task	Results (post-intervention)	Comments
Mixed programme—session that integrates exercises of at least three of the following modalities: trunk, balance, plyometric, strength training, flexibility
Weir et al. [58]	10 elite female hockey players	16-week maintenance training program (3 × 10-min sessions a week) which directly followed a high-dose 9-week initial training intervention (4 × 20-min sessions a week), as part of a biomechanically informed ACL injury prevention program BW plyometric, resistance, and balance exercises	45˚ side-step—UP	↓ peak KAMs (ES = 0.30, 26.3%) following maintenance High-risk responders displayed ↓ peak KAM (28.6%) and IRM (37.1%)	Highlight the importance of continuing the training Acknowledged there will be responders and non-responder Abstract format
Weir et al. [61]	13 elite female hockey players	8-week 4 × 15-min multi-component sessions consisting of BW plyometric, resistance, and balance exercises	45˚ side-step—UP	↑ TMA of the gluteal (grouped maximus and medius) by 10% during WA (p = 0.006, power = 0.864). ↔ in frontal plane knee moments (p < 0.01, ES = 0.73), ↑ hip extension moment (ES = 0.56)	No differences in frontal plane knee moments Abstract format No CG
Yang et al. [60]	22 male, 18 female (basketball and volleyball)	4-week multi-component programme consisting trunk strengthening, stretching, proprioceptive training, hip extension strength training and plyometric training intervention—3 × a week (N = 18, 9 male and 9 female) Plus a CG (N = 18, 9 male and 9 female)	45° side-step Sidesteps—PP—5 step run-up	↔ no differences in knee flexion angles, peak impact posterior GRF, or exit velocities compared to CG following intervention (4–12 weeks post-training intervention)	Multicomponent programme; however, strength exercises were prescribed for, strength/ muscular endurance Considered only limited number of variables—unknown the effect of frontal plane biomechanics Short duration
Bencke et al. [59]	17 male handball players	Mixed programme consisting of jump landings, unilateral squats, hamstring pulls, hip abductions, and one-leg coordinated hopping IG (n = 10) 12 weeks twice a week Plus a CG (n = 7)	Side-step (no other decsriptions provided)	IG ↑ VPF (ES = 0.41), ↓ GCTs (p < 0.05, ES = 0.94) due to a ↓ concentric phase duration (p < 0.05, ES = 0.94) ↓ ST (p < 0.05, ES = 0.63) and BF pre-activity duration (p = 0.08, ES = 0.59)	No joint kinetics/kinematics examined
Staynor et al. [53]	25 female community-level team sport athletes *6 withdrawals for training group	Split into IG (n = 8) and CG (n = 10), 2 × a week for 9 weeks (15- to 20-min sessions) Combination of BW plyometric, resistance, and balance exercises	Side-step—UP (full details not provided)	IG ↑ peak KFM (ES = 0.77), ↔ in peak KAM (ES = 0.16) and IRM (ES = 0.0), but CG ↑ peak KAM (ES = 0.36, 28%) and ↑ IRM (ES = 0.56, 38%) IG ↓ hip abduction (ES = 0.70, 31%) ↑ knee flexion at foot strike (ES = 0.59, 33%) ↓ trunk flexion range of motion (ES = 0.97, 29%) ↓ lateral trunk flexion (ES = 0.40, 16%) ↓ lateral foot plant distance (ES = 0.84, 11%)	Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference Attendance and compliance rates of 71 ± 14 and 77 ± 7%
Combined balance and COD technique training
Donnelly et al. [64]	AFL male athletes (n = 1001) 34 athletes for biomechanical testing (BTT, n = 20; ST, n = 14)	Balance and COD technique training (BTT) or acceleration training (ST) 2 × week—20 min/week—18 weeks 1 × week—weeks 19–28	45° ± 5°, side-step Sidesteps—PP and UP	Both training groups: ↓ peak IRM (p = 0.025, ES = 0.57)—45% reduction, during PP ↑ peak KAM (p = 0.022, ES = 0.44)—31% increase during UP	High athlete to coach ratio (40:1) Low athlete compliance (45 ± 22%)
Combined trunk stabilisation and resistance training
Jamison et al. [62]	22 males (previously played American football) N of 10 and 11 completed testing	RT only or Resistance and trunk stabilisation (TS) 6 weeks—3 sessions a week	45° ± 5°, side-step 3 steps self-selected jog	RT only ↑ peak KAMs (p = 0.012, 50%) and ↑ peak IRM (p = 0.617, 12%) Combined training ↑ peak KAM (p = 0.116, 35%) and ↓ peak IRM (p = 0.110, 35%) (SD not provided, thus ES cannot be calculated)	Did not achieve a priori minimum sample size recommendations Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference Static trunk exercises were used
Combined resistance training, and intersegmental control training during running and COD drills
King et al. [65]	112 athletes with athletic groin pain were assessed pre- and post- rehabilitation	Athletes were subjected to three levels of rehabilitation: Level 1 intersegmental control and strength training Level 2 linear running drills (lumbo-pelvic control and posture) Level 3 multidirectional technique drills that emphasised segmental control (using holding a medball, or arms locked overhead) and lateral propulsion	110° cut -PP, ~ 2 m.s−1	↓ ipsilateral trunk side flexion (ES = 0.79) ↓ hip abduction angle and hip adduction moment ↑ pelvic rotation in the direction of travel (ES = 0.76) ↑ centre of mass translation in the direction of travel relative to centre of pressure (ES = 0.40) ↓ knee flexion angle (ES = 0.33) ↑ ankle plantar flexor moment (ES = 0.48) ↔ in approach velocity (p = 0.434, ES = 0.07) ↓ GCT (ES = 0.30) ↑ dorsi-flexion (ES = 0.58) Large increase in total work done at the ankle, a moderate reduction in the total work done at the hip, and a small reduction at the knee after rehabilitation.	Considered performance implications Showed positive effects for injury risk and performance No CG Did not establish reliability, measurement error, or meaningful difference

↑ increase, ↓ decrease, ↔ no significant change, XOC crossover cut, KAM knee abduction moment, WA weight acceptance, IRM internal rotation moment, SD standard deviation, BW body weight, GRF ground reaction force, PP pre-planned, UP unplanned, BW body weight, ACL anterior cruciate ligament, RT resistance training, ES effect size, CG control group, TMA total muscle activation, CG control group, COD change of direction, VL vastus lateralis, BF biceps femoris, ST semitendinosus, VPF vertical propulsive force