Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35922872›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2022

Alternatives to common approaches for training change of direction performance: a scoping review.

Robert Buhmann, Max Stuelcken, Mark Sayers

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

3 authors.

Robert BuhmannSchool of Health and Behaviour Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, 4556, Australia. rbuhmann@usc.edu.au.
Max StuelckenSchool of Health and Behaviour Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, 4556, Australia.
Mark SayersSchool of Health and Behaviour Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, 4556, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch focuses heavily upon the effect of strength and power training on change of direction performance. The objective of this scoping review is to highlight alternative approaches to training change of direction.

methodsFour databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus) were searched with no date restrictions. To be included studies must (i) investigate change of direction performance following an intervention or investigate the relationships between variables of interest and change of direction performance; (ii) recruit participants > 18 years old; (iii) recruit participants involved in competitive sport. The majority of included studies investigated the effect of strength and/or power training, or, relationships between strength and/or power variables with change of direction performance.

resultsDespite fewer studies, alternative training methods resulted in greater improvements (compared with strength and/or power) in change of direction performance, with smaller training durations. Few studies included reactive agility as an outcome measure.

conclusionDespite much of the literature focusing on strength and/or power, there are alternative training modalities that demonstrate merit for improving change of direction performance. Future studies should investigate the effect of alternative training interventions on reactive agility performance, to provide a more valid indication of transfer to competition.

Indexed as

AgilityChange of directionKinematicsPowerStrength

Identifiers

PMID35922872
PMCPMC9347107

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.