https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2860-2260
Figures
Abstract
Background
The literature identifies several factors that are associated with lower limb performance (LLP). However, there is little consensus on which factors have the major associations with LLP.
Objective
Examine, analyze and summarize the scientific evidence on the factors associated with the performance of LLP in children and adolescents of both sexes aged between 7 and 17 years.
Design
This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered in PROSPERO.
Data sources
A systematic literature search of five electronic databases (i.e., SPORTDiscus, PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS) with date restrictions was conducted (2010 to 2021).
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies
Eligibility criteria included (i) a study published between 2010 and 2021; (ii) a research study with observational design; (iii) a study analyzing LLP; and (iv) a sample composed of young people between 7 and 17 years old (regardless of sex).
Analyses
Literature analysis was carried out in English and Portuguese between 2018 and 2021, “blindly” by two researchers. For data sorting, Rayyan® was used. Data extraction and evidence analysis were performed “blindly”, using the Loney scale. The minimum items for observational studies were analyzed by the STROBE checklist. Meta-analyses were conducted based on age group (Childhood [7 to 11 Yrs] and Adolescence [12 to 17 Yrs]) and puberty stages (i.e., Prepupertal and Pubertal). The heterogeneity between the samples of the studies was assessed using the “Cochran’s Q” and “I^2” statistics. Meta-regression analyses were performed to check the factors related to heterogeneity of the studies and to check the associations between chronological age and LLP.
Results
The literature search resulted in 1,109,650 observational studies of which 39 were included in this review. Through Meta-analysis and Meta-regressions, it was possible to indicate that advancing chronological age related to increased LLP (p<0.01), and that in relation to puberty stages pubertal subjects had higher LLP than their pre-pubertal peers (p<0.01).
Discussion
The main findings of the present systematic review suggest that as chronological age advances (childhood to adolescence), neuromuscular systems mature and this may be due to advancing puberty, which is also associated with an increase in LLP.
Citation: Almeida-Neto PFd, Oliveira VMM, de Matos DG, dos Santos ÍK, Baxter-Jones A, Pinto VCM, et al. (2021) Factors related to lower limb performance in children and adolescents aged 7 to 17 years: A systematic review with meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(10): e0258144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258144
Editor: Nili Steinberg, The Wingate College of Physical Education and Sports Sciences at the Wingate Institute, ISRAEL
Received: April 28, 2021; Accepted: September 18, 2021; Published: October 6, 2021
Copyright: © 2021 Almeida-Neto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data underlying this study are publicly available at Figshare, DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.15167046.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
For children and adults, lower limbs performance (LLP) is considered a significant component for high performance in several sports (e.g,basketball, volleyball, football, karate, etc.) [1–4]. In addition, LLP is seen as an extremely important factor in determining physical fitness (i.e., competence in performing muscle work in a way that does not require high effort), and contributes to the performance of daily activities such as running, walking, sitting, and being able to get-up [5–7]. During childhood and adolescence, because of these relationships, LLP can be used as an indicator of motor performance and functional health (locomotors functions) [8, 9].
Lower limbs performance can be asssed using different protocols, among the most commonly used methods are analysis by jumping protocols and measurement by isokinetic dynamometers [10, 11]. Thus, using specific tests for LLP it is possible to classify the physical fitness of young people in relation to functionality and sports performance [10, 11]. Such results can contribute to guiding coaches and health professionals on appropriate modifications of training regimes to improve the health and motor performance of children and adolescents [10, 11]. It is noteworthy that, during puberty, the variability in differences in physical and motor aspects between individuals of the same chronological age (CA) can be very significant [12]. Given this assumption, when analysing LLP in young people it is necessary to take into account not just their chronological age but also their stage of biological maturation (BM) (i.e., improvement in biological functions) [12, 13].
During maturation, the neuromuscular system improves, this can result in young people with advanced puberty having higher levels of LLP compared to their CA matched. less advanced pubertaly, peers [12–14]. It should be noted that during puberty, young people have lower LLP levels in relation to the muscular performance of other body segments (i.e., upper limbs and trunk) [11, 15, 16]. One of the justifications is that during puberty, the maturation process follows a linear pattern of caudal-skull development [17].
Scheffler and Hermanussen [18], found that the neuromuscular system and morphological development are improved primarily in the upper segment of the human body, which may disadvantage the LLP compared to other body segments. Others, such as Silva and Oliveira [19], found no relationship between puberty and LLP levels. Physical activity is another factor that has been shown to have a relationship with LLP. Rover et al., [20] and Martins et al., [21] found that LLP was influenced by the level of physical activity, and may also be influenced by anatomical patterns such as the length of the lower limbs and statural height. Moreover, several authors in observational studies identify differences both favouring and not favouring LLP, such as advanced CA, being male, having predominantly a lean body morphology or having high levels of steroid hormones (i.e., testosterone and estradiol) [3, 5, 22–25]. More evidence is required to test the influence of biological maturation, as well as the associated factors, on LLP development. Such studies are required to ensure consideration of new approaches that contribute to better understanding of the independent role of maturation.
Hanlon et al., [26], identified that sports programs related to injury prevention in the lower limbs region of young athletes were are able to improve intrinsic factors, such as muscle strength, that are associated with motor coordination, posture and body balance. However, these authors did not investigate the same factors related to the increase in performance of LLP.
Currently there is no consensus in the literature as to what factors relate to LLP development. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has been conducted focusing on interventions related to factors that may influence the levels of LLP in children and adolescents. Therefore, it is necessary to systematize the current knowledge so that coaches and health professionals are able to explain which factors can be taken into account in order to improve LLP development in children and adolescents.
The objective of this systematic review was examine, analyse and summarize the scientific evidence of the factors associated with the LLP development in children and adolescents of both sexes, aged between 7 and 17 years.
2. Methods
2.1 Protocol and registration
This review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [27], according to the guidelines of the EQUATOR Reports (Improving the Quality and Transparency of Health Research). It was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; ID: n° CRD42020137925). In addition, this review strictly complied with all the criteria required by the AMSTAR check list (i.e., tool developed to judge the methodological quality of systematic reviews) [28].
2.2 Identification of studies and search strategy
In order to systematically define the initial details of the research strategy for the production of this review, the scheme described by the Joanna Briggs Institute was adopted, where the structure helps in defining the steps to be followed for the construction of the systematic review [29]. The method recommends the prior definition of the study population, the study interventions and the design of studies that are part of the review [29]. Thus, the population of the present study was defined as young people aged between 7 and 17 years old; the intervention considered was the evaluation of the LLP and the types of studies considered were observational.
For searches of academic articles in the databases, descriptors registered on the DEC’s and MeSH platforms were used primarily, the descriptors were connected through the Boolean operators OR / AND. It should be noted that the usual terms referring to the descriptors were also connected during the searches. Thus, the search strategy used was: Child OR Children AND Adolescent OR Adolescents OR Teenagers AND Performance AND Potency Muscle AND Explosive force AND Muscle Power. The searches were performed with the same word grid translated into Portuguese.
The aforementioned search strategy word grid was used in four phases of the present study (2nd semester 2018, 1st semester 2019, 2nd semester 2019, 1st semester 2020, details in the results section). However, the results were not satisfactory, which led the research team to review the methodology of the present study. After a thorough review, the word grid of the search strategy underwent changes in the Boolean operators: Child AND Children OR Adolescent AND Adolescents AND Teenagers OR Performance AND Potency Muscle OR Explosive force OR Muscle Power. The searches were performed with the same grid of words translated into Portuguese. The updated word grid in the search strategy was used in two more stages of the study (2nd semester 2020, 1st semester 2021, details in the results section), and the results were satisfactory.
2.3 Eligibility of the studies criteria
The evaluation of the eligibility of the studies was carried out independently by two researchers (P.F.A-N. and V.M.M.O.), using the electronic research platforms: PubMed, CINAHL, SPORT Discus, Google Scholar and SCOPUS (when available, the advanced search feature was used), between January 2018 and February 2021. The searches were made in both English and Portuguese. Intitaly, studies were considered for inclusion based on titles and abstracts. This procedure was organized in three separate steps: the first aimed to search the digital databases, while the second and third were aimed at identifying new publications. For the selection of works, the following eligibility criteria were adopted: (i) a study published between 2010 and 2021; (ii) a research study with observational design; (iii) a study analysing LLP; and (iv) a sample composed of young people between 7 and 17 years old (regardless of sex).
2.4 Data extraction
Data sorting occurred with the aid of the online tool Rayyan QCRI® [30]. Rayyan QCRI® is an open source application that allows the author, collaborators and research supervisor to have access to the systematic review data, ensuring the blindness of researchers during searches and data extraction [30]. The extraction of data and analysis of the quality of the evidence, were carried out “blindly” by two different researchers (P.F.A-N. and V.M.M.O.), each performed the recording of the main data from the studies. Subsequently, all researchers gathered the main results of the articles included in this review; it should be noted that only the data referring to LLP were maintained after data extraction.
2.5 Criteria for risk of bias assessment
The risk assessment of biases was carried out in a “blind” way, by three different researchers (I.K.S., P.M.S.D. and B.G.A.T.C.), using the quality scale of observational studies proposed by Loney et al. [31]. The final results of the evaluations were optimized and discussed by all the researchers involved (P.F.A-N., V.M.M.O., D.G.M., I.K.S., A.B-J., V.C.M.P, T.M.C., P.M.S.D., F.J.A. and B.G.A.T.C.). Methodological biases were analysed; results and reproducibility. The Loney scale considers the following points [31]: 1) The study does not answer the research question adequately. 2) The sample base and the sample size were not adequate. 3) Objective, adequate and standardized criteria for the outcome were not used. 4) The outcome was measured in a skewed manner. 5) Results are not given with a confidence interval when appropriate. 6) The study does not expose practical applicability. 7) The study has no reproducibility for other samples from different populations.
2.6 Analysis of the basic requirements that must be part of an observational study
It was verified whether the studies contained in the sample met the requirements required by STROBE (i.e., List of minimum items that must be integrated into observational studies) [32].
2.7 Analyses and synthesis of results
The effects of interventions that compared LLP among young people of different maturation stages [Pre-pubertal x Pubertal] and different age groups [7 to 17 years] were measured by the difference in standardized means and grouped using random effect models. The heterogeneity between the studies was assessed using the “Cochran’s Q” and “I^2” statistics. Studies were considered heterogeneous when: I^2> 50% [33]. Subgroup meta-analysis (considering sample sex, LLP assessment protocol and biological maturation assessment protocol)] and meta-regression (considering sample size, chronological age and age group) were used to assess possible sources of heterogeneity. Meta-regression was performed to determine whether chronological age (7 to 17 years) and age group (childhood (chronological age: 7 to 11 yrs) and adolescence (chronological age: 12 to 17 yrs)) were influencing LLP.
The agreement values of the studies in relation to the STROBE criteria were indicated in percentiles. The relative value of 100% was taken into account for the total number of items on the chek list. Subsequently, the relative value of items in which the studies were in accordance with the chek in list STROBE was calculated. The Kappa reliability index was calculated among the evaluators, to verify the degree of reliability in relation to the criteria of the bias analysis scale. The magnitude used was: absent [34]: Kappa = ≤0; poor: Kappa = 0–0.19; weak: Kappa = 0.20–0.39; moderate: Kappa = 0.30–0.59; substantial: Kappa = 0.60–0.79; and almost complete: Kappa = ≥ 0.80. All analyses were performed using open source software R (version 4.0.1; Foundation for Statistical Computing®, Vienna, Austria) and alpha was set at p <0.05.
3. Results
3.1 Search for articles in the databases for the present study
Table 1 shows the number of articles found in each database according to the search criteria, by semester, during the data collection period. The first 4 semesters correspond to the first research strategy, and the last two semesters correspond to the data resulting from the adjusted research grid (See Section: Identification of Studies and Search Strategy). Thus, in the year 2019 and in the first stage of the year 2020 the searches took as the starting date the day of the previouse search. In the second half of 2020, searches considered the time interval identified in the search strategy (2010 to 2020), and in 2021 searches were made taking as the starting date the day of the previous search.
3.2 Agreement among the researchers regarding the screening of studies
Fig 1 depicts the graphs of agreement regarding the screening of studies included in the Rayyan online tool, both researchers arrived at the same results in relation to the inclusion of articles (25.1%). However, when dealing with exclusions, researcher I (P.F.A-N) excluded 74.9% of the articles while researcher II (V.M.M.O) excluded 73.2% of the data and was undecided in 1.7% of the analysed texts (i.e., undecided as to inclusion). In addition, the inter-rater agreement was almost complete (Kappa = 0.835; p = 0.04).
RI: Researcher I. RII: Researcher II.
3.3 Reasons for inclusion and exclusion of studies in the present review
Fig 2 (part “A”, “B” and “C”) shows the flowchart of the general outline of the present study in relation to the identification and selection of the texts included in this systematic review. The flowchart shows the total number of texts found, the number of articles included and excluded, and the reason for exclusion. The results of Fig 2A, refer to the first four semesters of the bibliographic searches (See Section: Identification of Studies and Search Strategy). While the results of Fig 2B, refer to the last two semesters of the bibliographic searches (See Section: Identification of Studies and Search Strategy).
3.4 Characterization of the studies included in the present review
In relation to the main outcomes of the studies conclusions included in this systematic review, the level of physical activity is identified as a determining factor for LLP in individuals of both sexes in 8% (n = 3) of the studies (see Table 2). In other words, subjects with a higher level of physical activity had higher LLP capacity. In addition, 18% (n = 8) of the articles indicated that advanced biological maturation significantly influenced the LLP of male subjects, while 3% (n = 1) of studies found a similar result in female subjects and 8% (n = 3) of the texts had similar conclusions for subjects of both sexes. However, another 6% (n = 2) of authors stated that, for females, biological maturation was not a determining factor for LLP.
It was observed that 3% (n = 1) of the articles affirm that puberty and the levels of steroid hormones were determinant for LLP in female individuals and 3% (n = 1) of papers indicated similar result in male athletes. In contrast 3% (n = 1) of studies indicated that only steroid hormones were determinants for LLP in individuals of both sexes. Regarding the biomechanical experience in performing jumps (task specificity) for the use of the LLP, 8% (n = 3) of the studies found that it is a significant factor, while another 8% (n = 3) indicated that it is an irrelevant factor for LLP. Anthropometric characteristics (8% of texts (n = 3)), sex (6% of texts (n = 2)), advanced chronological age (12% of texts (n = 6)) and body morphology (6% of texts (n = 2)) were also identified as factors associated with higher levels of LLP (See Table 2).
3.5 Data groupings
In Fig 3 studies are grouped dependant on available means and standard deviations data of LLP by sex and age group. Thus, two groups were formed: Childhood (formed from data from subjects aged 7 to 11 years) and adolescence (formed from data from subjects aged 12 to 17 years). It was found that, with respect to the overall effect, the adolescence group had higher LLP when compared to the childhood group (Fig 3A). This was verified by subgroup analyses which showed that this occured regardless of sex and the jumping protocol used to analyze LLP (Fig 3B and 3C). However, the data grouped in Fig 3 shows a very high heterogeneity, indicating that although the overall effect favors the adolescent group, there are perculiarities in the studies that require caution when analyzing this finding.
SJ:Squat jump. CMJ: Countermovement jump. SD: Standard deviation. MD: Mean Difference.
Given the heterogeneity of the results found in the data grouping in Fig 3, a meta-regression analyses was performed to explain the reasons for the wide heterogeneity among the studies grouped by age group. Thus, it was indicated the high heterogeneity among the studies could be accounted for by the variety of sample sizes of the surveys (which ranged from 24 to 2758 subjects) and the variety of chronological age of the samples grouped by age groupings, which ranged from 7 to 11 years for childhood and from 12 to 17 years for adolescence (See Table 3).
In addition, Fig 4 displays the metaregression analysis that encompassed the studies that compared LLP in different chronological age groups (ranging from 7 to 17 years), indicating that chronological age was related to increased LLP in males (Point estimate: 1. 9; Standard error: 0.04, 95% CI: 1.7; 2.0; Z: 39.1; p<0.001) and females (Point estimate: 0.3; Standard error: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.3; 0.4; Z: 10.1; p<0.001), and that chronological age explained the heterogeneity among the studies grouped in Fig 3 by 70% for males and 68% for females.
(cm): Centimeters. —-: Confidence Interval 95%.
In Fig 5 studies were grouped by those studies which had means and standard deviations of LLP when analysing by stage of biological maturation (pre-pubertal and pubertal). Thus, the overall effect of the analyses indicated that subjects during puberty had superior LLP when compared to their pre-pubertal peers (Fig 5A). However, subgroup analyses indicated that for male subjects the result remained similar to the global one identified (Fig 5B), while for female subjects there was no significant difference between the subgroups (Fig 5C). For the aforementioned analyses, the levels of heterogeneity between the studies were acceptable (<25%).
SJ:Squat jump. CMJ: Countermovement jump. SD: Standard deviation. MD: Mean Difference.
3.6 Study quality and basic requirements for an observational study
Fig 6 reports the analysis of biases of the analysed studies. In general (Fig 6A) and individually (Fig 6B), studies presented a high risk for not presenting confidence intervals appropriate for their studies. Thus, 10% of studies indicate d high methodological quality (i.e., low risk in all criteria of the Loney scale [31]), while 59% displayed moderate methodological quality (i.e., high risk or uncertain risk in one or two items of the Loney scale [31]), and 31% indicated low methodological quality (i.e., high risk or uncertain risk in three or more items on the Loney scale [31]). When analyzing each item in the Loney [31], 80% of the analyzed articles indicated low risk of bias for subjects related to the sample, the outcome and the reproducibility of the research. However, 80% of the studies did not present the confidence intervals in the statistical analysis and about 46% of the authors did not indicate practical applicability for the study results.
i: The study does not answer the research question adequately. ii: The sample base and the sample size were not adequate. iii: Objective, adequate and standardized criteria for the outcome were not used. iv: The outcome was measured in a skewed manner. v: Results are not given with a confidence interval when appropriate. vi: The study does not expose practical applicability. vii: The study has no reproducibility for other samples from different populations. STROBE—Percentage of minimum requirements met for observational studies.
In addition, the percent agreement of the studies with the STROBE requirements for observational studies are shown in the figures, which was used to help interpret the basic methodological requirements of each study included in this systematic review. Thus, four studies showed agreement between 27 and 30%, four articles showed agreement between 33 and 39%, five studies showed agreement between 45 and 48%, ten studies showed agreement between 50 and 56%, three studies showed agreement above 70%, six studies agreement between 80 and 87% and six studies showed agreement above 90% with the STROBE requirements (Fig 3B). It is noteworthy that the Kappa coefficient reliability index among the three evaluators was ≥0.723 (p = 0.02), which indicates good compatibility in relation to the bias analysis and in relation to the STROBE analysis.
Regarding the most frequently omitted STROBE by the studies, failure to explain the study hypothesis, this occurred in ~90% of the articles, ~86% of the studies did not state the research design in the manuscript title, ~75% of the studies omitted the sample recruitment process, ~65% did not report whether confounding factors were controlled for during study procedures, and ~88% did not address possible efforts to minimize biases during the research.
4. Discussion
The objective of this systematic review was to analyse factors associated with performance of lower limbs (LLP) in young boys and girls aged between 7 and 17 years.
The main findings indicated that advancing chronological age related to increased LLP, and that pubertal youth demonstrated higher LLP than their pre-pubertal peers. In addition, among the individual results of the studies gathered in the present review, it was found that body morphology was related to LLP. In this sense, our findings suggest that as chronological age advances (childhood to adolescence) a maturation of biological systems occurs and that consequently the phenomena triggered (i.e., growth spurt, increase in androgenic hormones, increase in lean mass levels, etc.) by puberty was associated with LLP.
When we grouped the studies by age group the results suggested that the transition between childhood and adolescence is related to LLP, where adolescents have superior values to their peers who are in childhood. However, the grouping of data pointed out a high heterogeneity (I2>50%), to try to identify the tail of the heterogeneity we performed subgroup analyses considering the jumping protocols used to analyze LLP, however the heterogeneity was reduced by less than 10% in the male and female groups, still being above 50%. Thus, the different jumping protocols used to analyze LLP do not seem to have influenced the high heterogeneity among the studies.
When performing meta-regression analyses to identify the factors that might be associated with high heterogeneity, it was found that variability in sample size among the pooled studies (which ranged from 24 to 2758 subjects) and variability in chronological age in the Childhood (from 7 to 11 years) and Adolescence (from 12 to 17 years) groups were associated with high heterogeneity. Through a new meta-regression we identified that advancing chronological age was associated with increased LLP, and that this association explained the heterogeneity across studies by 70% for males and 68% for females.
In this sense, based on the present systematic review when disregarding sex (male and female) the stage of puberty may have beeen a factor associated with LLP. Thus, for both sexes, pubescent subjects showed higher levels of LLP than prepubescent subjects. However, when considering the male and female subgroups for protocol for the analysis of biological maturation, it was found that male pubertal subjects perform better in LLP than their prepubertal peers, regardless of the protocol used (i.e., skeletal age and sexual maturation). Howere no differences were found in females subgroups (i.e., skeletal age, sexual maturation and menarche). This can be explained by the fact that peak biological maturity in female subjects occured about two to three years earlier compared to their male peers [18, 61, 62]. In addition, there were a low number of studies in each analyzed subgroup, it is suggested that by increasing the sample size in the subgroups, the results could have pointed to significant differences.
The heterogeneity, although among the studies was acceptable, we must consider that the grouped studies used different indirect protocols (i.e., equations, age at menarche and secondary sexual characteristics) to identify the stages of puberty. When assessing puberty by indirect methods, at the end of the analyses the tools generate numerical scores that group subjects into puberty levels that can vary in three stages for skeletal age (1: late or pre-pubertal. 2: average or pubertal. 3: early or post-pubertal), in two stages for age at menarche (1: pre-pubertal. 2: pubertal), and in up to 5 stages for secondary sexual characteristics (1: pre-pubertal. 2 to 4: pubertal. 5: post-pubertal) [3, 13, 18, 19]. This variety in methods of classification may have influenced the results of the present study.
When considering articles that were not part of the meta-analysis, due to the non-information of the central tendency measures of the maturational groups, this variability in the estimation of pubertal status contradicts the findings, demonstrating the absence of a consensus on the relationship of puberty with LLP [3, 19, 24, 35, 36, 40, 47, 48, 53, 54]. We emphasize that one must also consider confounding factors related to the puberty process that may also influence or relate to LLP, such as body morphology for example.
It is known that with the advancement of puberty there will increase the physiological stimuli that promote the secretion of androgenic hormones such as testosterone and estradiol [3, 18, 24, 63]. In subjects of both sexes the increased levels of hormones may favor lean mass gain [64, 65]. However, there is a strong interaction of adequate nutrition and the level of physical training in relation to reaching the apex this is favoring [10].
In this context, the level of physical activity and time of exercise can also provide the subjects with a greater biomechanical experience in performing jumps, and other specific movements of sports that have the predominance of the lower limbs such as running and kicking, for example [66]. Thus, according to the review carried out by the present study (See Table 2), it was possible to suggest that the mastery of the technique (i.e., biomechanical factors linked to the vertical jump or the counter-movement jump) was associated with the specific training of the sport to which the subjects were part of (i.e., volleybal, basketball, soccer, etc.) as well as the level of physical activity, [21, 37, 39, 41–42, 45, 49].
Regarding the quality of the articles contained in the present review, the sampling power and reproducibility indicated low levels of bias (See Fig 6B), suggesting that the outcomes of the research results contained in this review were appropriate. However, most of the studies analysed by the present review did not present the confidence intervals (CI) of their findings. It is known that CIs are used to indicate the reliability of an estimate [67]. Thus, among similar estimates, those that indicate a narrowe CI indicate more reliable results in relation to those with a wider CI [67]. Moreover, 36% of the articles brought together in this review, did not indicate a practical applicability for their results. Research without practical applicability does not offer objectivity, which can make it unfeasible for the professional field and unattractive for readers [68].
Within this perspective, the analyses of the present study also indicated that a significant amount of studies included in this review (59%, see Fig 6B), presented less than 70% of the essential items for an observational study, and this may suggest caution when interpreting the findings identified. Methodological flaws can be easily committed when the requirements involved in the design of a research study are not understood, which can skew the results to inadequate estimates [32, 69–71].
The present study has among its strengths the fact that the methodology has been turned to the analysis of observational studies, which are seldome explored in systematic review articles. Identifying that there are several divergences in relation to the methodologies used in these studies, is useful in encouraging future studies to seek a higher methodological quality in relation to the criteria required for this type of scientific research. In addition, this review contributes to the work of health and sport professionals, in helping them explain what factors should be analysed and / or stimulated to favor the LLP in children and adolescents.
However, the present study has the following limitations: (i) The set of descriptors used in the methodology has a limited scope; (ii) Despite the relevance, the databases used may not have been enough for the collection of studies available on the subject.
5. Conclusion
It is concluded that the factors associated with lower limbs performance in youths of both sexes in the age group between 7 and 17 years old are still inconsistent in the literature. However, both advancing chronological age and stage of puberty are associated with increased lower limbs performance. In addition, the studies reviewed suggest that the level of physical activity, body morphology and hormonal factors are additional factors associated with the lower limbs performance.
Acknowledgments
For your support and encouragement for the development of this academic article, we thank the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), the State University of Ceará (UECE), the Physical Activity and Health (AFISA) research base, the Child and Adolescent Maturation Research Group (GEPMAC). The National Council for Scientific Development (CNPQ) and the Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination (CAPES).
References
- 1. Bordignon O, Olivoto R. Diagnosis of physical fitness level in schoolchildren of both sexes aged between 8 and 10 years. Educ Fís Dep Rev Dig. 2004; 77:1–11. [In Portuguese].
- 2. Ribeiro A, Silva D, Carvalho F, Schiavoni D, Jesus B, Cyrino E. Health-related physical fitness in men and women aged 17–26 years. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde. 2013; 18: 197.
- 3. Almeida-Neto PF, Silva DPM, Pinto VCM, Cesário TDM, Ribeiro Campos NM, Santana EE, et al. Biological Maturation and Hormonal Markers, Relationship to Neuromotor Performance in Female Children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 3277. pmid:32397137
- 4. Almeida-Neto PF, de Matos DG, Baxter-Jones ADG, Batista GR, Pinto VCM, Dantas M, et al. The effectiveness of biological maturation and lean mass in relation to muscle strength performance in elite young athletes. Sustainability. 2020; 12: 6696.
- 5. Luguetti CN, Ré AHN, Böhme MTS. Physical fitness indicators of schoolchildren in the midwest region of the city of São Paulo. Rev bras cineantropom desempenho hum. 2010; 12: 331–337. [In Portuguese].
- 6. Cattuzzo MT, dos Santos Henrique R, Ré AHN, de Oliveira IS, Melo BM, de Sousa Moura M, et al. Motor competence and health related physical fitness in youth: A systematic review. J sci med sport. 2016; 19: 123–129. pmid:25554655
- 7. Gu X, Chang M, Solmon MA. Physical activity, physical fitness, and health-related quality of life in school-aged children. J Teac Phys Educ. 2016; 35:117–126.
- 8. Krebs RJ, Macedo FDO. Performance of physical fitness of children and adolescents. Rev Dig. 2005;85: 1–1. [In Portuguese].
- 9. Cadenas-Sanchez C, Intemann T, Labayen I, Peinado AB, Vidal-Conti J, Sanchis-Moysi J, et al. Physical fitness reference standards for preschool children: The PREFIT project. J sci med sport. 2019; 22: 430–437. pmid:30316738
- 10.
Guedes DP, Guedes JERP. Growth, body composition and motor performance of children and adolescents. 1 a ed. São Paulo: CLR Balieiro, 1997. [In Portuguese].
- 11. Mello JB, Nagorny GAK, Haiachi MDC, Gaya AR, Gaya ACA. Projeto Esporte Brasil: physical fitness profile related to sport performance of children and adolescents. Rev bras cineantropom desempenho hum. 2016;18: 658–666.
- 12. Malina RM, Rogol AD, Cumming SP, Silva MJC, Figueiredo AJ. Biological maturation of youth athletes: assessment and implications. Br J Sports Med. 2015; 49: 852–859. pmid:26084525
- 13. Almeida-Neto PF, de Matos DG, Pinto VCM, Dantas PMS, Cesário TM, da Silva LF, et al. Can the Neuromuscular Performance of Young Athletes Be Influenced by Hormone Levels and Different Stages of Puberty? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 5637. pmid:32764284
- 14. Ré AHN, Bojikian LP, Teixeira CP, Böhme MTS. Relationships between growth, motor performance, biological maturation and chronological age in young males. Rev bras ciênc esporte. 2005;19: 153–162. [In Portuguese].
- 15. Zaqout M, Vyncke K, Moreno LA, De Miguel-Etayo P, Lauria F, Molnar D, et al. Determinant factors of physical fitness in European children. Eur j public health. 2016; 61: 573–582. pmid:27042830
- 16. Weedon BD, Liu F, Mahmoud W, Metz R, Beunder K, Delextrat A, et al. The relationship of gross upper and lower limb motor competence to measures of health and fitness in adolescents aged 13–14 years. BMJ open sport & exercise medicine. 2018; 4(1). pmid:29629179
- 17.
Wondisford FE. Puberty Cases. In Essentials of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 1a ed. Springer: Cham. 2020. P. 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39572-8_30
- 18. Scheffler C, Hermanussen M. Growth in childhood and adolescence. Int Enc Biol Ant. 2018; 1: 1.
- 19. Silva DAS, Oliveira ACCD. Impact of sexual maturation on upper and lower limb strength in adolescents. Rev bras cineantropom desempenho hum. 2010; 12: 144–150. [In Portuguese].
- 20. Rover C, Fin G, Schaly D, Silva LCB, de Aquino JNQ, Junior RJN. Strength in active and inactive children over a six-month interval. Evidência Joaçaba. 2011; 11: 75–82. [In Portuguese].
- 21. Martins GC, Oliveira H, Camargo LB, Vieira F, Noda DKG, Novelli C, et al. Biomechanical analysis of vertical jump: comparative study between sports and non-sports children. Rev CPAQV. 2014; 6:1. [In Portuguese].
- 22. Aouichaoui C, Trabelsi Y, Bouhlel E, Tabka Z, Dogui M, Richalet JP, Buvry AB. The relative contributions of anthropometric variables to vertical jumping ability and leg power in Tunisian children. J strength cond res. 2012; 26: 777–788. pmid:22289700
- 23. Aouichaoui C, Tounsi M, Mrizak I, Tabka Z, Trabelsi Y. Reference values of vertical jumping performances and anthropometric characteristics in trained adolescents. Sci Sports. 2017; 33: e59–e74.
- 24. Pinto VCM, dos Santos PGMD, Dantas MP, Araújo JPDF, Cabral SDAT, Cabral BGDAT. Relationship between skeletal age, hormonal markers and physical capacity in adolescents. J Hum Growth Dev. 2017; 27: 77–83.
- 25. Tounsi M, Aouichaoui C, Elloumi M, Dogui M, Tabka Z, Trabelsi Y. Reference values of vertical jumping performances in healthy Tunisian adolescent. Ann hum biol. 2014; 42: 117–125. pmid:24974833
- 26. Hanlon C, Krzak JJ, Prodoehl J, Hall KD. Effect of Injury Prevention Programs on Lower Extremity Performance in Youth Athletes: A Systematic Review. Sports Health. 2020;12(1):12–22. pmid:31390306
- 27. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Declaration and Meta-Analysis Protocol Declaration (PRISMA). Rev Syst. 2015; 4: 1. pmid:25554246
- 28. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, WeLLP GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC med res methodol. 2007; 7:10. pmid:17302989
- 29.
Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. 2020. https://doi.org/10.46658/jbimes-20-04
- 30. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:210. pmid:27919275
- 31. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, Roberts JG, Stratford PW. Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Dis Can. 1998; 19: 170. pmid:10029513
- 32. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Strobe Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int j surgery. 2014; 12: 12, 1495–1499. pmid:25046131
- 33. Dinnes J, Deeks J, Kirby J, Roderick P. A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. NIHR Journals Library. 2005; 1: NBK62298. pmid:15774235
- 34. Miot HA. Agreement analysis in clinical and experimental trials. J Vasc Bras. 2016; 15: 89–92. pmid:29930571
- 35. Mariano T, de Arruda M, Pascoal EHF. Young soccer players: contribution of maturation and anthropometric variables in the development of explosive strength and speed in pubescent and post-pubescent children during three months of training. Conexões: Educ Fís Esp Saud. 2010; 8: 103–116. [In Portuguese.
- 36. Da Silva FRF, da Silva NN, Coimbra RL, Barbosa AW, Filho JF. Analysis of muscle power of lower limbs as a function of bone and chronological age in adolescent students. Ed Cient. 2010; 1: 140. [In Portuguese].
- 37. Chillón P, Ortega FB, Ferrando JA, Casajus JA. Physical fitness in rural and urban children and adolescents from Spain. J sci med sport. 2011; 14(5): 417–423. pmid:21620767
- 38. Carvalho HM, Coelho-e-Silva M, Valente-dos-Santos J, Gonçalves RS, Philippaerts R, Malina R. Scaling lower-limb isokinetic strength for biological maturation and body size in adolescent basketball players. Eur j appl physiol. 2012; 112(8), 2881–2889. pmid:22138868
- 39. Da Silva DM, Calomeni Maciel RN, Neto NTAAP, Morales MR. Differences in muscle power levels in children inserted early in sports training. Biol Saud. 2013; 3:8. [In Portuguese].
- 40. Hoshikawa Y, Iida T, Muramatsu M, Ii N, Nakajima Y, Chumank K, et al. Thigh muscularity and strength in teenage soccer players. Int j sports med. 2013; 34(05), 415–423. pmid:23059556
- 41. Quatman-Yates CC, Myer GD, Ford KR, Hewett TE. A longitudinal evaluation of maturational effects on lower extremity strength in female adolescent athletes. Pediatric physical therapy: the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association. 2013; 25(3), 271. pmid:23619561
- 42. Silva LVM, Packe C, Tkac C, Braga RK, Urbinati KS. Association between variables of body composition and physical fitness in adolescents. Rev Aten Saud. 2013; 12:41. [In Portuguese].
- 43. Filho MR. Comparison of physical fitness levels of students from a public school in Guarulhos who practice Futsal and Handball after 12 weeks of training. RBFF. 2013; 5:15. [In Portuguese].
- 44. Hoffmann JK, Tozetto AVB, Milistetd M, Medeiros TE, Ignachewski WL. Influence of maturation, height and sum of skinfolds on the strength of lower limbs in adolescents practicing futsal. RBFF. 2014; 6:21. [In Portuguese].
- 45. Silva DP, Viana ATN, Keulen GV, Dias MR. Correlation between lower limb power, flexibility of the posterior chain, and the difference in body mass index of young adolescent soccer players in different positions. Brazilian J Soccer Sci. 2015; 8: 3–10. [In Portuguese].
- 46. Rezende FN, da Costa WR, Fidale TM, de Agostini GG, Marcacini JP, de Paula Lana R, et al. Comparison of trunk strength, abdominal resistance and upper and lower limb power of students from 5th to 8th grade of public and private elementary school. Arq Cien Esp. 2016; 4:1. [In Portuguese.
- 47. Gantois P, Pinto V, Castro KRD, João PV, Dantas P, Cabral BG. Skeletal age and explosive strength in young volleyball players. Rev bras cineantropom desempenho hum. 2017; 19: 331–342.
- 48. Barros JDSV, Venicius M, de Lima M, Sampaio AN, de Moura Rocha SM, Dantas PMS, et al. Analysis of Motor SkiLLP in the Maturation Stages of Female Adolescents. Rev bras crescimento desenvolv hum. 2017; 1: 206–212.
- 49. Feitoza DDF, Câmara HC, Gomes JGN. Muscular Power of Lower and Upper Limbs of Schoolchildren from a Public School in the Municipality of Pau dos Ferros-RN. Rev Redfoco. 2017; 4:1. [In Portuguese].
- 50. McKinlay BJ, Wallace PJ, Dotan R, Long D, Tokuno C, Gabriel DA, et al. Isometric and dynamic strength and neuromuscular attributes as predictors of vertical jump performance in 11-to 13-year-old male athletes. Appl physiol nutr metab. 2017; 42(9), 924–930. pmid:28489955
- 51. Agresta C, Church C, Henley J, Duer T, O’Brien K. Single-leg squat performance in active adolescents aged 8–17 years. J strength cond res. 2017; 31(5), 1187–1191. pmid:27575249
- 52. Moreira CD, Sperandio BB, de Almeida TF, Ferreira EF, Soares LA, de Oliveira RAR. Physical fitness level for sports performance in adolescent participants of the sport in action project. RBPFEX. 2017; 11: 74–82. [In Portuguese].
- 53. Dantas MP, Silva LF, Gantois P, Silva LM, Dantas RN, Cabral BGAT. Relationship between maturation and explosive strength in young rowers. Motricidade. 2018;14:4–11. [In Portuguese].
- 54. Dobrowoski M, dos Santos Duarte MA, Marques PA, da Cunha Voser R. Biological maturation, physical fitness and growth: study of young schoolchildren, male Futsal practitioners, aged between 11 and 15 years. RBPFEX. 2018;12: 247–255. [In Portuguese].
- 55. Pinto DP, Araújo EM, Batista Filho WF. Comparative analysis of cardiorespiratory fitness and lower limb power in soccer and volleyball athletes. RBFF. 2019; 11: 61–69. [In Portuguese].
- 56. Xu Y, Mei M, Wang H, Yan Q, He G. Association between weight status and physical fitness in Chinese Mainland children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study. Int j environ res public health. 2020; 17(7), 2468. pmid:32260379
- 57. Zanini D, Kuipers A, Somensi IV, Pasqualotto JF, Quevedo JDG, Teo JC, et al. Relationship between body composition and physical capacities in junior soccer players. Rev bras cineantropom desempenho hum. 2020; 22:1.
- 58. Mandroukas A, Metaxas TI, Michailidis Y, Christoulas K, Heller J. Effects of soccer training in muscular strength: a comparative study in trained youth soccer players and untrained boys of the same biological age. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2020; Dec 14: 33314887. pmid:33314887
- 59. Itoh R, Hirose N. (2020). Relationship Among Biological Maturation, Physical Characteristics, and Motor Abilities in Youth Elite Soccer Players. J strength cond res. 2020; 34(2), 382–388. pmid:31469763
- 60. Guimarães E, Maia JA, Williams M, Sousa F, Santos E, Tavares F, et al. Muscular Strength Spurts in Adolescent Male Basketball Players: The INEX Study. Int j environ res public health. 2021; 18(2), 776. pmid:33477582
- 61. Karuc J, Mišigoj-Duraković M. Relation between Weight Status, Physical activity, Maturation, and Functional Movement in Adolescence: An Overview. J Func Morph Kinesiol. 2019;4: 31. pmid:33467346
- 62. Lloyd RS, Oliver JL, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD, Croix MBDS. Chronological age vs. biological maturation: implications for exercise programming in youth. J strength cond res. 2014; 28: 1454–1464. pmid:24476778
- 63. Goswami B, Roy AS, Dalui R, Bandyopadhyay A. Impact of pubertal growth on physical fitness. Am J Sport Sci Med. 2014; 2: 34.
- 64. Deschenes MR, Kraemer WJ. Performance and physiologic adaptations to resistance training. Am j phys med rehabilit 2002; 81: S3–S16. pmid:12409807
- 65. Legerlotz K, Marzilger R, Bohm S, Arampatzis A. Physiological adaptations following resistance training in youth athletes—a narrative review. Ped exerc sci. 2016; 28: 501–520. pmid:27705536
- 66.
Ahtiainen JP. Physiological and Molecular Adaptations to Strength Training. In Concurrent Aerobic and Strength Training. Springer: Cham. 2019. Pp. 51–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75547-2_5
- 67. Gouvêa MA, Cyrino ES, Valente-dos-Santos J, Ribeiro AS, da Silva DRP, Ohara D, et al. Comparison of skillful vs. less skilled young soccer players on anthropometric, maturation, physical fitness and time of practice. Int j sports med. 2017; 38: 384–395. pmid:28340491
- 68. Ci B, Rule RO. Confidence intervals. Lancet. 1987; 8531: 494–7. pmid:2950780
- 69. McLennan K. The importance of research applicability. Anim Sent. 2019; 4:31.
- 70. Hu X, Jung A, Qin G. Interval estimation for the correlation coefficient. American Statistician. 2020; 74: 29–36.
- 71. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do?. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2765–2767. pmid:12038906