This meta-analysis pooled data from 10 studies involving 270 participants to assess the effects of combined balance and plyometric training on change-of-direction and dynamic balance. The intervention was compared against active control conditions. The analysis found statistically significant improvements in change-of-direction performance (Hedges' g = -0.77, P < 0.05) and multiple measures of dynamic balance, including Y-Balance (Hedges' g = 1.32), dynamic postural stability index (Hedges' g = -1.27), and center of pressure measures (Hedges' g = -1.25), all with P < 0.05.
Heterogeneity was moderate to high for most outcomes, with I² values ranging from 58.8% to 67.5%, though heterogeneity was 0.0% for the dynamic postural stability index outcome. Subgroup analysis for change-of-direction performance showed no significant effect of age, gender, training frequency, or duration on the results. No safety, tolerability, or adverse event data were reported in the available evidence.
Key limitations include the absence of reported population characteristics beyond total sample size, no safety or tolerability data, and uncertainty about which outcomes were primary versus secondary. The clinical significance of the observed effect sizes cannot be determined from this analysis alone. The findings represent associations from intervention studies rather than definitive causal evidence. For clinicians, this suggests combined training may be a viable option for improving these specific performance metrics, but implementation should consider the lack of safety data and specific population applicability.
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Preceding studies have demonstrated that a combination of balance and plyometric training can enhance change-of-direction and dynamic balance. However, to date, a paucity of meta-analyses has precluded the provision of a comprehensive summary of the extant data.
OBJECTIVE: The meta-analysis aims to examine the effects of combined balance and plyometric training on change-of-direction and dynamic balance compared to active controls.
METHOD: The present meta-analysis was conducted in strict adherence to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in five electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, EBSCOhost. The present study incorporated studies published from inception until June 2025. Eligibility was assessed using the PICOS method. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. For the meta-analysis, the random-effects model was utilised, and the Hedges' g effect size (ES) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were reported. Subgroup analyses were conducted (age, gender, training frequency, duration).
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with 270 participants were included. Compared with the control group, combined balance and plyometric training significantly improved change-of-direction (ES = -0.77, I2 = 65.6%, P < 0.05), Y-Balance (ES = 1.32, I² = 67.5%, P < 0.05), dynamic postural stability index (ES = -1.27, I² = 0.0%, P < 0.05), and center of pressure (ES = -1.25, I² = 58.8%, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that age, gender, training frequency, and duration had no effect on the training effect of change-of-direction.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined balance and plyometric training can significantly improve change-of-direction and dynamic balance, and existing evidence shows that the training effects of change-of-direction are not affected by age, gender, training frequency, or duration.