Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31787902›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2019

A Review of Countermovement and Squat Jump Testing Methods in the Context of Public Health Examination in Adolescence: Reliability and Feasibility of Current Testing Procedures.

Luca Petrigna, Bettina Karsten, Giuseppe Marcolin, Antonio Paoli, Giuseppe D'Antona, Antonio Palma, Antonino Bianco

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Luca PetrignaPh.D. Program in Health Promotion and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Bettina KarstenDepartment of Exercise and Sport Science, LUNEX International University of Health, Exercise and Sports, Differdange, Luxembourg.
Giuseppe MarcolinDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Antonio PaoliDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Giuseppe D'AntonaCRIAMS-Sport Medicine Centre, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Antonio PalmaPh.D. Program in Health Promotion and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Antonino BiancoPh.D. Program in Health Promotion and Cognitive Sciences, Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
University of Palermo · ITUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of a public health physical fitness (PF) examination in adolescence, a countermovement jump (CMJ) and a squat jump (SJ) are two vertical jump (VJ) tests widely used to evaluate lower limb muscle strength and power, respectively. The main criticism of both the CMJ and SJ test is the lack of test standardization. Therefore, the objectives of this review are: (a) to gather information about both jumps; (b) to investigate whether it is possible to identify common procedures referred to in the CMJ and SJ technical execution, and (c) to design standard operating procedures (SOPs) to promote CMJ and SJ standardization in an adolescent population aged 12-18 years.

methodsThe review partially adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA). Due to growing attention in monitoring physical health through field tests in recent years, articles were collected using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from January 2009 to July 2019. Original articles in which CMJ or SJ were used to assess the muscular strength in adolescents were eligible for further analysis. Articles written in English was imposed as a limit.

resultsA total of 117 studies met the inclusion criteria. The description of the CMJ and SJ test procedures was different within the literature, with discrepancies in the jump technique, number of jumps, and measurement devices used.

conclusionsA lack of method standardization for both the CMJ and the SJ test was identified. Based on the literature, SOPs for both VJs were proposed. These are useful in the context of public health PF examination in adolescents, as they facilitate an unbiased comparison of jump performance data between published studies.

Indexed as

adolescentCMJphysical fitnesspublic healthSJstandardized protocolstandard operating procedurevertical jump

Identifiers

PMID31787902
PMCPMC6853898
OpenAlexW2983131079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.