Table 2.
Methodological quality of the included studies using the PEDro rating scale
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Scorea | Study quality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amaro et al. [121] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Aurell-Badenas et al. [122] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Bellver et al. [123] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Moderate |
| Bishop et al. [124] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Bonacci et al. [125] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Born et al. [126] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Breed and Young [127] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Cañas-Jamett et al. [128] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Cossor et al. [66] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Moderate |
| Egan-Shuttler et al. [129] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Egan-Shuttler et al. [130] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Garrido et al. [131] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Jones et al. [132] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Moderate |
| Kramer et al. [133] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Martin et al. [134] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Oranchuk et al. [135] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Potdevin et al. [136] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Pupišová et al. [137] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Moderate |
| Ramos-Veliz et al. [138] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Rebutini et al. [139] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Saez de Villarreal et al. [113] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Saez de Villarreal et al. [112] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Sammoud et al. [141] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Sammoud et al. [140] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Veliz et al. [142] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Vlachopoulos et al. [56] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
A detailed explanation for each PEDro scale item can be accessed at https://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-scale. In brief: item 1, eligibility criteria were specified; item 2, participants were randomly allocated to groups; item 3, allocation was concealed; item 4, the groups were similar at baseline; item 5, there was blinding of all participants regarding the plyometric jump training programme being applied; item 6, there was blinding of all coaches responsible for the application of plyometric jump training programme regarding its aim towards the improvement of physical fitness/sport-specific performance; item 7, there was blinding of all assessors involved in measurement of physical fitness/sport-specific performance attributes; item 8, measures of at least one key outcome variable were obtained from more than 85% of participants initially allocated to groups; item 9, all participants for whom outcome variables were available received the treatment or control condition as allocated or, data for at least one key outcome variable were analysed by “intention to treat”; item 10, the results of between-group statistical comparisons were reported for at least one key outcome variable; and item 11, point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome variable were provided
aFrom a possible maximal score of 10