ArticleScientific reports2024
Sex differences in the adaptations in maximal strength and anaerobic power to upper body plyometric training.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Maximal lactate accumulation rate (European journal of applied physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the effects of a 6-week upper body plyometric training (UBPT) on maximal strength and anaerobic power performance of male and female subjects. Forty collegiate physically active male and female subjects participated in the study and were assigned to either UBPT group (M-UBPT, n = 10, F-UBPT, n = 10) or control group (M-CON, n = 10; F-CON, n = 10). The training groups performed 6 weeks of progressive overload UBPT three times per week using six exercises and were evaluated for upper-body anaerobic power and maximal strength, 3-kg medicine ball throw (MBT), push-up endurance, and reaction time at pre- and post-intervention. After the training intervention, the M-CON and F-CON groups did not show significant (p > 0.05) changes in the variables, while both the M-UBPT and F-UBPT groups demonstrated significant (p = 0.001) medium to very large improvements in their performance as follows: maximal strength (effect size [ES] = 0.55, 0.92), MBT (ES = 1.96, 0.89) peak power output (ES = 2.31, 1.52), mean power output (ES = 2.19, 1.11), push-up endurance (ES = 1.26, 0.70), and reaction time (ES = - 2.16, - 1.56), respectively. Nevertheless, the male group experienced more significant improvements in the MBT (p = 0.001), peak (p = 0.001) and mean power output (p = 0.01), as well as reaction time (p = 0.01) compared to the female group when utilizing UBPT. In conclusion, it is imperative to take sex into account as a crucial factor when incorporating UBPT, particularly if the objective is to enhance anaerobic power output, muscular power, and reaction time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.