↓ Skip to main content

A Meta-Analysis to Determine Strength Training Related Dose-Response Relationships for Lower-Limb Muscle Power Development in Young Athletes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Meta-Analysis to Determine Strength Training Related Dose-Response Relationships for Lower-Limb Muscle Power Development in Young Athletes
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.01155
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maamer Slimani, Armin Paravlic, Urs Granacher

Abstract

It is well-documented that strength training (ST) improves measures of muscle strength in young athletes. Less is known on transfer effects of ST on proxies of muscle power and the underlying dose-response relationships. The objectives of this meta-analysis were to quantify the effects of ST on lower limb muscle power in young athletes and to provide dose-response relationships for ST modalities such as frequency, intensity, and volume. A systematic literature search of electronic databases identified 895 records. Studies were eligible for inclusion if (i) healthy trained children (girls aged 6-11 y, boys aged 6-13 y) or adolescents (girls aged 12-18 y, boys aged 14-18 y) were examined, (ii) ST was compared with an active control, and (iii) at least one proxy of muscle power [squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump height (CMJ)] was reported. Weighted mean standardized mean differences (SMDwm) between subjects were calculated. Based on the findings from 15 statistically aggregated studies, ST produced significant but small effects on CMJ height (SMDwm = 0.65; 95% CI 0.34-0.96) and moderate effects on SJ height (SMDwm = 0.80; 95% CI 0.23-1.37). The sub-analyses revealed that the moderating variable expertise level (CMJ height: p = 0.06; SJ height: N/A) did not significantly influence ST-related effects on proxies of muscle power. "Age" and "sex" moderated ST effects on SJ (p = 0.005) and CMJ height (p = 0.03), respectively. With regard to the dose-response relationships, findings from the meta-regression showed that none of the included training modalities predicted ST effects on CMJ height. For SJ height, the meta-regression indicated that the training modality "training duration" significantly predicted the observed gains (p = 0.02), with longer training durations (>8 weeks) showing larger improvements. This meta-analysis clearly proved the general effectiveness of ST on lower-limb muscle power in young athletes, irrespective of the moderating variables. Dose-response analyses revealed that longer training durations (>8 weeks) are more effective to improve SJ height. No such training modalities were found for CMJ height. Thus, there appear to be other training modalities besides the ones that were included in our analyses that may have an effect on SJ and particularly CMJ height. ST monitoring through rating of perceived exertion, movement velocity or force-velocity profile could be promising monitoring tools for lower-limb muscle power development in young athletes.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Researcher 9 6%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 45 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 60 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 51 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,336,147
of 25,810,956 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,294
of 15,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,876
of 343,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#61
of 484 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,810,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 484 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.