Effects of Plyometric Training on Physical Fitness Attributes in Handball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to examine the effects of plyometric training on physical fitness attributes in handball players. A systematic literature search across PubMed, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science identified 20 studies with 563 players. Plyometric training showed significant medium-to-large effects on various attributes: countermovement jump with arms (ES = 1.84), countermovement jump (ES = 1.33), squat jump (ES = 1.17), and horizontal jump (ES = 0.83), ≤ 10-m linear sprint time (ES = -1.12), > 10-m linear sprint time (ES = -1.46), repeated sprint ability with change-of-direction time (ES = -1.53), agility (ES = -1.60), maximal strength (ES = 0.52), and force-velocity (muscle power) (ES = 1.13). No significant impact on balance was found. Subgroup analysis indicated more pronounced agility improvements in players ≤ 66.6 kg compared to > 66.6 kg (ES = -1.93 vs. -0.23, p = 0.014). Additionally, greater improvements were observed in linear sprint and repeat sprint ability when comparing training durations of > 8 weeks with those ≤ 8 weeks (ES = -2.30 to -2.89 vs. ES = -0.92 to -0.97). In conclusion, plyometric training effectively improves various physical fitness attributes, including jump performance, linear sprint ability, maximal strength, muscle power and agility.

Keywords: Plyometric training; handball; jumping training; performance; physical fitness.

Appendix D (Figure 1).

Forest plot of changes in countermovement jump with arms height in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 2).

Forest plot of changes in countermovement jump height in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 3).

Forest plot of changes in squat jump height in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 4).

Forest plot of changes in horizontal jump distance in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 5).

Forest plot of changes in ≤ 10-m linear sprint time in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 6).

Forest plot of changes in > 10-m linear sprint time in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 7).

Forest plot of changes in repeated sprint ability with change-of-direction time in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 8).

Forest plot of changes in maximal strength in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 9).

Forest plot of changes in force–velocity in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 10).

Forest plot of changes in dynamic balance in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 11).

Forest plot of changes in static balance in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Appendix D (Figure 12).

Forest plot of changes in Agility test time in handball players participating in plyometric jump training compared to handball players allocated as controls. Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges’s g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.