Plyometric Exercises: Optimizing the Transfer of Training Gains to Sport Performance

Effects of plyometric training on measures of physical fitness in racket sport athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Over the past decade, the popularity of racket sports has surged. Plyometric training (PT) has been the focus of extensive research because of the proven benefits it provides to athletes. However, there is a lack of systematic reviews and meta-analyses specifically evaluating the impact of PT on physical fitness metrics in racket sport athletes. This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of evidence derived from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effects of PT on measures of physical fitness among racket sports athletes.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and SPORTDiscus were systematically searched up to June 2023 without placing any restrictions on the publication dates. The PICOS method was adopted to establish the inclusion criteria: (a) healthy athletes who participate in racket sports; (b) a PT program; (c) a control group; (d) assessment of physical fitness components pre- and post-PT; and (e) RCTs. The records' methodological quality was assessed utilizing the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The certainty in the evidence related to each outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment. A random-effects model was used to calculate effect sizes (ES; Hedges' g) between experimental and control groups.

Results

There were 14 eligible studies of moderate-to-high-quality, involving 746 athletes in total. The results revealed small-to-moderate effects (p < 0.05) of PT on muscle power (ES = 0.46), muscle strength (ES = 0.50), sprint speed (ES = 0.45), change of direction ability (ES = 0.76), and reaction time (ES = 0.67), while no clear evidence was found on balance and flexibility. The training-induced changes in muscle power showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) between youth (ES = 0.72) and adults (ES = 0.40). There were also similar muscle power improvements (ES = 0.36-0.54 vs 0.38-0.56, all p > 0.05) for a length of ≤7 weeks with ≤14 total PT sessions vs >7 weeks with >14 total PT sessions, and ≤2 weekly sessions vs >2 sessions. No adverse effects were reported in the included studies regarding the PT intervention. The certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrated that PT has positive effects on important indices of physical fitness among athletes participating in racket sports. Future studies are required to clarify the optimal doses and examine interactions among training variables to further promote the physical fitness of this specific population.