{"title":"体育训练项目对健康运动员垂直跳高的影响：meta分析的系统回顾。","authors":"Shuzhen Ma, Yanqi Xu, Simao Xu","doi":"10.52082/jssm.2025.236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Various physical training programs are widely used to enhance vertical jump height, but their relative effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate effectiveness of four training methods -weight resistance, plyometric, complex, and routine training- on vertical jump height. A comprehensive search of six databases (PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Scopus) identified relevant studies coded based on training type, modality, and outcome measures. Methodological quality and statistical analysis were assessed using PEDro scale and R (version 4.1.3) with the 'meta' package. Eight studies revealed that plyometric training and weight resistance exercise increased vertical jump by 5.2 cm (95% CI: 2.6, 7.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 4.7%) and 9.9 cm (95% CI: 6.7, 13.5 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), while improved squat jump by 1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%) and 3.1 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 16.9%) compared to routine training. Fifteen studies indicated that plyometric training, weight resistance exercise, and complex training increased countermovement jump by 2.0 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), 2.2 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), and 5.0 cm (95% CI: 2.5, 7.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%) compared to routine training. Complex training was more effective than weight resistance (2.6 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.5 cm) and plyometric training (2.9 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.8 cm), with no significant difference between weight resistance and plyometric training (0.2 cm; 95% CI: -1.0, 2.0 cm). Heterogeneity was low for most comparisons (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0% to 16.9%), indicating consistent results across different interventions. This meta-analysis demonstrates that plyometric, weight resistance, and complex training significantly improve vertical, squat, and countermovement jump performance. Weight resistance is effective for vertical and stationary vertical jumps, while complex training is most effective for countermovement jumps.</p>","PeriodicalId":54765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","volume":"24 2","pages":"236-257"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12131147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Physical Training Programs on Healthy Athletes' Vertical Jump Height: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shuzhen Ma, Yanqi Xu, Simao Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.52082/jssm.2025.236\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Various physical training programs are widely used to enhance vertical jump height, but their relative effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate effectiveness of four training methods -weight resistance, plyometric, complex, and routine training- on vertical jump height. A comprehensive search of six databases (PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Scopus) identified relevant studies coded based on training type, modality, and outcome measures. Methodological quality and statistical analysis were assessed using PEDro scale and R (version 4.1.3) with the 'meta' package. Eight studies revealed that plyometric training and weight resistance exercise increased vertical jump by 5.2 cm (95% CI: 2.6, 7.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 4.7%) and 9.9 cm (95% CI: 6.7, 13.5 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), while improved squat jump by 1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%) and 3.1 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 16.9%) compared to routine training. Fifteen studies indicated that plyometric training, weight resistance exercise, and complex training increased countermovement jump by 2.0 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), 2.2 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%), and 5.0 cm (95% CI: 2.5, 7.6 cm; I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%) compared to routine training. Complex training was more effective than weight resistance (2.6 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.5 cm) and plyometric training (2.9 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.8 cm), with no significant difference between weight resistance and plyometric training (0.2 cm; 95% CI: -1.0, 2.0 cm). Heterogeneity was low for most comparisons (I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0% to 16.9%), indicating consistent results across different interventions. This meta-analysis demonstrates that plyometric, weight resistance, and complex training significantly improve vertical, squat, and countermovement jump performance. Weight resistance is effective for vertical and stationary vertical jumps, while complex training is most effective for countermovement jumps.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"24 2\",\"pages\":\"236-257\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12131147/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2025.236\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sports Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2025.236","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
各种各样的体育训练项目被广泛用于提高垂直跳跃高度，但它们的相对效果仍然存在争议。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了四种训练方法——重量阻力训练、增强训练、复合训练和常规训练——对垂直起跳高度的影响。对六个数据库（PubMed， ERIC， b谷歌Scholar， Web of Science， EBSCOhost和Scopus）进行全面搜索，确定了基于训练类型，模式和结果测量编码的相关研究。方法学质量和统计分析采用PEDro量表和带有“meta”软件包的R（4.1.3版）进行评估。八项研究表明，增强训练和重量抵抗运动使垂直跳跃增加了5.2厘米(95% CI: 2.6, 7.7厘米；I2 = 4.7%)和9.9 cm (95% CI: 6.7, 13.5 cm；I2 = 0.0%)，蹲跳提高1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm；I2 = 0.0%)和3.1 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm；I2 = 16.9%)。15项研究表明，增强训练、重量阻力训练和复合训练使反向运动跳跃增加2.0 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm；I2 = 0.0%), 2.2 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm；I2 = 0.0%), 5.0 cm (95% CI: 2.5, 7.6 cm；I2 = 0.0%)与常规训练相比。复合训练比重量抵抗更有效(2.6 cm；95% CI: 0.2, 5.5 cm)和增强训练(2.9 cm；95% CI: 0.2, 5.8 cm)，重量阻力和增强训练之间无显著差异(0.2 cm；95% CI: -1.0, 2.0 cm)。大多数比较的异质性较低（I2 = 0.0%至16.9%），表明不同干预措施的结果一致。这项荟萃分析表明，增强训练、重量阻力训练和复杂训练显著提高了垂直、深蹲和反动作跳跃的表现。重量阻力是有效的垂直和静止垂直跳跃，而复杂的训练是最有效的反动作跳跃。
Effects of Physical Training Programs on Healthy Athletes' Vertical Jump Height: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.
Various physical training programs are widely used to enhance vertical jump height, but their relative effectiveness remains debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate effectiveness of four training methods -weight resistance, plyometric, complex, and routine training- on vertical jump height. A comprehensive search of six databases (PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Scopus) identified relevant studies coded based on training type, modality, and outcome measures. Methodological quality and statistical analysis were assessed using PEDro scale and R (version 4.1.3) with the 'meta' package. Eight studies revealed that plyometric training and weight resistance exercise increased vertical jump by 5.2 cm (95% CI: 2.6, 7.7 cm; I2 = 4.7%) and 9.9 cm (95% CI: 6.7, 13.5 cm; I2 = 0.0%), while improved squat jump by 1.5 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I2 = 0.0%) and 3.1 cm (95% CI: 0.2, 2.6 cm; I2 = 16.9%) compared to routine training. Fifteen studies indicated that plyometric training, weight resistance exercise, and complex training increased countermovement jump by 2.0 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I2 = 0.0%), 2.2 cm (95% CI: 1.4, 3.7 cm; I2 = 0.0%), and 5.0 cm (95% CI: 2.5, 7.6 cm; I2 = 0.0%) compared to routine training. Complex training was more effective than weight resistance (2.6 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.5 cm) and plyometric training (2.9 cm; 95% CI: 0.2, 5.8 cm), with no significant difference between weight resistance and plyometric training (0.2 cm; 95% CI: -1.0, 2.0 cm). Heterogeneity was low for most comparisons (I2 = 0.0% to 16.9%), indicating consistent results across different interventions. This meta-analysis demonstrates that plyometric, weight resistance, and complex training significantly improve vertical, squat, and countermovement jump performance. Weight resistance is effective for vertical and stationary vertical jumps, while complex training is most effective for countermovement jumps.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (JSSM) is a non-profit making scientific electronic journal, publishing research and review articles, together with case studies, in the fields of sports medicine and the exercise sciences. JSSM is published quarterly in March, June, September and December. JSSM also publishes editorials, a "letter to the editor" section, abstracts from international and national congresses, panel meetings, conferences and symposia, and can function as an open discussion forum on significant issues of current interest.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
