ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Physical and Biomechanical Relationships with Countermovement Jump Performance in Team Sports: Implications for Athletic Development and Injury Risk.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral physical qualities have been linked to countermovement jump (CMJ) performance. However, the relative importance of each of these factors is unclear. (1) Objectives: The present systematic review sought to evaluate the characteristics associated with CMJ performance in adult team-sport athletes. (2) Methods: A comprehensive search of three databases and the grey literature yielded 18 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess statistically significant relationships and interpreted as negligible (0.00-0.10), weak (0.10-0.39), moderate (0.40-0.69), strong (0.70-0.89), and very strong (0.90-1.00). (3) Results: Eighteen articles remained eligible, with an average quality score of 76% ± 14 on the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal index. The strongest correlations reported included time-to-bottom, time-to-peak force, knee extension peak power at 180 °/s, and squat jump height. (4) Conclusions: The conclusions drawn from this study suggest that, to maximize CMJ performance, priority should be given to movement biomechanics and lower-body power whilst considering individual braking-phase strategies. These findings may inform training programs aimed not only at enhancing athletic performance but also at reducing injury risks associated with poor jumping mechanics in team sports.
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.