AzTrials
AzTrials

Athletic InjuriesNCT04350385

Dose Response of Plyometric Training on Agility in Cricket Players

A study testing Agility training and Conventional in people with Athletic Injuries, run by Riphah International University at 1 site in Pakistan.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The objective of the study was to determine the effects of plyometric training on agility in national cricket players. The study design was Randomized Controlled Trial. 40 cricket players were included in the study through open epi tool out of which n=20 players were in experimental group and n=20 players were in… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 25 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
Conditions the study is for
Athletic Injuries
What is being tested?
Agility training and Conventional
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
40 participants
Where
1 sitePakistan
Study dates
1 Aug 2019to 20 Feb 2020
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 25 years
  • Men only
  • Healthy volunteers accepted
  • Adult

Who may be able to join

  • Age between 18-25 Years.
  • Males
  • Those who had minimum one year of experience in domestic cricket(first class)

Who cannot join

  • Players undergone surgery or had accident within last 6 months.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Pakistan1 site
  • Riphah International University

    Islamabad, Federal, 44000

Other trials in Pakistan

About this study

Official title: Effects of Dose Response of Plyometric Training on Agility in Cricket Players

The objective of the study was to determine the effects of plyometric training on agility in national cricket players. The study design was Randomized Controlled Trial. 40 cricket players were included in the study through open epi tool out of which n=20 players were in experimental group and n=20 players were in control group. Assessments were taken as baseline on first week, on third week and on sixth week by performing few exercises such as Illinois Agility Run test, T test and Vertical jump test.

Read the detailed description

Cricket is considered as one of the world's major team sports in terms of regular international games. It is similar to the game of baseball generally played outdoors on natural grass fields. As cricket is a bat and ball sport. Bowling action is explosive in nature; whereby a large amount of force must be generated over a very short period of time. They discussed that fast bowlers have consistently been identified as the category of cricket players at the greatest risk of injury. Bowling action is a highly skilled activity, which is acquired over years of fine tuning. Equally from a neuromuscular perspective, the bowling action is a complex activity and optimal performance is a result of highly tuned inter-muscular and intra-muscular coordination, which is governed by the central nervous system. It has been shown that recently modern training techniques and in particularly strength training, has been perceived to be a major contributing factor to the recent injuries sustained at a national level.

In many sports straight sprinting speed and agility are considered important qualities. Straight line sprinting is a relatively closed skill involving predictable and planned movements and is used in sports such as track and field and gymnastics. It is difficult to define agility, as it is the ability to change direction and start and stop quickly. In a sporting situation, changes of direction may be initiated to either pursue or evade an opponent or react to a moving ball. Therefore, it has been recognized that a component of agility performance is the response to a stimulus. Further Chelladurai and Yuhasz demonstrated that a change of direction task with a simple stimulus shared only 31% common variance with a more complex task in which the timing and location of the stimulus were not known. It has been shown that up-and-back sprint time of 2.4-m increased as a light stimulus became less predictable in terms of timing and location, presumably because of increased information processing.This suggests that having to react to a stimulus such as an opponent's movement on the field may significantly influence the nature of the change-of-direction movement task.

Several studies have reported correlations between straight sprint tests and various agility tests. When a correlation coefficient (r) is less than 0.71, the shared or common variance between the 2 variables is less than 50%, indicating that they are specific or somewhat independent in nature. Hortobagyi et al. used this statistical approach to demonstrate that various modes of strength testing indicated more generality (r ˃ 0.71) of strength than specificity (r ˂ 0.71). Common variances of 11% and 22% have been reported, respectively, for straight sprints and a soccer agility test and the Illinois agility test. Further, these investigators conducted a factor analysis on several fitness test results and found the speed and agility tests to be represented by different factors. This meant that speed and agility had little in common statistically, leading the authors to conclude that they were relatively independent qualities.

In 1969, a study was conducted that compared the effects of speed and agility training on various fitness parameters. The study reported that agility training was superior to speed training for performance in the Illinois agility run and a ''zig-zag run'' but the speed training was not significantly better for improving 50-yd sprint time. Unfortunately, the authors failed to describe the training that was implemented, making it difficult to evaluate the effects. Since the potential specificity of speed and agility training has not yet been clearly established, the purpose of the present study was to determine if straight sprint training transferred to change-of-direction tests of varying complexities. Another objective was to determine if agility training could enhance straight sprinting speed. Plyometric consists of a rapid stretching of a muscle (eccentric action) immediately followed by a concentric or shortening action of the same muscle and connective tissue. Plyometric drills usually involve stopping, starting, and changing directions in an explosive manner. These movements are components that can assist in developing agility. Plyometric exercises include jumps, hops, skips, bounds and throws. Plyometric training is an intense form of exercise that helps athletes improves the power of their movements. Plyometric training is used to improve maximum strength and speed of movement which result in an increase of explosive power.

Agility is the ability to change direction or body position rapidly and proceed with another movement. Agility is the physical ability that enables a person rapidly to change body position and direction in a precise manner. Agility is generally defined as the ability to change direction quickly and effectively while moving as possible at full speed.

Being tested
Agility training, Conventional
Keywords
Agility, Dose Responce, Plyometric training
Medical subject headings
Athletic Injuries

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Agility trainingOther

    In experimental group, 30 meter sprint test will be used as intervention with complexity in different stages. Test 1 was a straight sprint and tests 2-7 involved multiple changes of direction. Tests 2-7 were designed to involve progressively greater change-of-direction complexity by increasing either the angle of directional change and/or the number of changes of direction. In experimental group, 6 weeks of intervention will be done on alternate days and assessment will be done on 1st, 3rd \& 6th week.

  • ConventionalOther

    In group B, Conventional intervention was given to the players under the supervision of Physical Therapist that includes warm-up, strength training, agility training and cool down. In control group, 6 weeks of intervention will be done on alternate days and assessment will be done on 1st, 3rd \& 6th week

Study groups in NCT04350385
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Group 1ExperimentalAgility Training
Receives: Other: Agility training
Group 2Active comparator.Conventional intervention
Receives: Other: Conventional

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Agility T test

    In T test players have to run 40 yards and time will be noted in seconds. Rating starts from >11.5 seconds (poor) to <9.5 seconds (excellent).

    Measured: 6th week

  2. Illinios agility test

    Player have to run about 60 meters and time will be noted in seconds with rating poor >18.8 seconds and excellent <15.9 seconds.

    Measured: 6th week

  3. vertical jump height

    The testing subject stood on side of wall and reached her hand at it max. The foot was kept flat on the ground. The finger tip of hand was marked as standing normal max. Distance with foot flat. This was recorded as standing reach height.

    Measured: 6th week

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted17 Apr 2020
  2. Study start1 Aug 2019
  3. Primary completion1 Jan 2020
  4. Study completion20 Feb 2020

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
40 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04350385
Sponsor's protocol ID
REC/00540 Danish Latif
Status last verified
Apr 2020
First submitted
14 Apr 2020
Last updated
21 Apr 2020
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Rae K, Orchard J. The Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (OSICS) version 10. Clin J Sport Med. 2007 May;17(3):201-4. doi: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318059b536.

    PubMed 17513912
  • Karppinen S, editor Strength training for fast bowlers: Resistance to resistance training. 1 of 1-Conference of Science, Medicine & Coaching in Cricket 2010; 2010

  • Young WB, McDowell MH, Scarlett BJ. Specificity of sprint and agility training methods. J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):315-9.

    PubMed 11710657
  • Chelladurai P. Manifestations of agility. Journal of the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. 1976;42(3):36-41.

  • Chelladurai P, Yuhasz M, Sipura R. The reactive agility test. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1977;44(3_suppl):1319-24.

  • Thomas JR, Silverman S, Nelson J. Research methods in physical activity, 7E: Human kinetics; 2015.

  • Hortobagyi T, Katch FI, LaChance PF. Interrelationships among various measures of upper body strength assessed by different contraction modes. Evidence for a general strength component. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(7):749-55. doi: 10.1007/BF00637387.

    PubMed 2737196
  • Buttifant D, Graham K, Cross K, editors. Agility and speed measurement in soccer players are two different performance parameters. Fourth World Congress of Science and Football; 1999.

  • Draper J. The 505 test: A test for agility in horizontal plane. Aust J Sci Med Sport. 1985;17(1):15-8.

  • Mayhew J, Piper F, Schwegler T, Ball T. Contributions of speed, agility and body composition to anaerobic power measurement in college football players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 1989;3(4):101-6.

  • Hilsendager DR, Strow MH, Ackerman KJ. Comparison of speed, stength, and agility exercises in the development of agility. Res Q. 1969 Mar;40(1):71-5. No abstract available.

    PubMed 5252467
  • Craig BW. What is the scientific basis of speed and agility? Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2004;26(3):13-4.

  • Gabbard C, LeBlanc E, Lowy S. Physical education for children: Building the foundation: Prentice-Hall; 1994

  • Singer RN. Motor learning and human performance: An application to physical education skills: Macmillan; 1975.

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Agility training and Conventional in people with Athletic Injuries, run by Riphah International University at 1 site in Pakistan.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Apr 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Agility T test (time frame: 6th week). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04350385, which also lists 14 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Apr 2020.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in