Athletic PerformanceNCT07826104
Microdosed Versus Conventional Plyometric Training in Adolescent Basketball Players
A study testing Microdosed Plyometric Training and Conventional Plyometric Training in people with Athletic Performance, run by Chongqing Normal University at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
This randomized controlled trial compared microdosed and conventional plyometric training in adolescent male basketball players. Forty participants aged 12-16 years were randomly assigned to either a microdosed training group or a conventional training group for 8 weeks. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 12 to 16 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Athletic Performance
- What is being tested?
- Microdosed Plyometric Training and Conventional Plyometric Training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 6 Apr 2026to 14 Jun 2026
- 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 12 to 16 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Male adolescent basketball players aged 12-16 years.
- Regular participation in organized basketball training.
- No lower-limb injury within the previous 3 months.
- No systematic plyometric training within the previous 6 months.
Who cannot join
- Injury or illness that prevented continued participation in the study.
- Participation in additional structured lower-limb training during the intervention.
- Failure to complete either the PRE or POST assessments.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site
Chongqing University of Education
Chongqing, Chongqing Municipality, 400065
About this study
Official title: Effects of Microdosed Versus Conventional Plyometric Training on Lower-Limb Explosive Power, Speed, and Agility in Adolescent Basketball Players: A Randomized Controlled Trial
This randomized controlled trial compared microdosed and conventional plyometric training in adolescent male basketball players. Forty participants aged 12-16 years were randomly assigned to either a microdosed training group or a conventional training group for 8 weeks. Both groups performed the same plyometric exercises and completed the same weekly training volume of 240 ground contacts. The microdosed group completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session, whereas the conventional group completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. The study evaluated changes in jump performance, reactive strength, sprint performance, agility, and body composition.
The study was completed before registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and is being registered retrospectively for transparency.
Read the detailed description
This study was an 8-week, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial designed to compare the effects of microdosed and conventional plyometric training in adolescent male basketball players.
Forty male basketball players aged 12-16 years were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to a microdosed training group (MT, n=20) or a conventional training group (CT, n=20). Both groups continued their regular basketball training and performed the same plyometric exercises, including ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps.
The total weekly plyometric training volume was matched between groups. The MT group completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session, whereas the CT group completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. Therefore, both groups completed 240 ground contacts per week and 1,920 ground contacts over the 8-week intervention. Exercise technique, hurdle height, box height, and recovery intervals were standardized between groups.
Outcomes were assessed before and after the intervention. These included body mass, body fat percentage, countermovement jump height and concentric peak power, squat jump height and concentric peak power, eccentric utilization ratio, drop jump height, reactive strength index, three-quarter-court sprint time, and hexagon test completion time.
This study was completed before registration on ClinicalTrials.gov. Therefore, this record represents a retrospective registration based on the completed study protocol and collected study data.
- Conditions
- Athletic Performance
- Being tested
- Microdosed Plyometric Training, Conventional Plyometric Training
- Keywords
- Microdosed Plyometric Training, Conventional Plyometric Training, Adolescent Basketball Players, Explosive Power, Speed, Agility, Reactive Strength, Jump Performance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Microdosed Plyometric TrainingOther
The intervention lasted 8 weeks. Participants completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session. Each session included ankle hops (2 sets × 10 repetitions), hurdle jumps over 70-cm hurdles (3 sets × 5 repetitions), and drop jumps from a 50-cm box (5 repetitions). Participants rested for 30 seconds between sets of ankle hops and hurdle jumps and 15 seconds between drop-jump repetitions. The total weekly volume was 240 ground contacts.
Conventional Plyometric TrainingOther
The intervention lasted 8 weeks. Participants completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. Each session included ankle hops (6 sets × 10 repetitions), hurdle jumps over 70-cm hurdles (9 sets × 5 repetitions), and drop jumps from a 50-cm box (15 repetitions). Participants rested for 30 seconds between sets of ankle hops and hurdle jumps and 15 seconds between drop-jump repetitions. The total weekly volume was 240 ground contacts.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Microdosed Plyometric Training | Experimental | Participants completed six plyometric training sessions per week for 8 weeks, with 40 ground contacts per session and 240 ground contacts per week. The training included ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps, in addition to regular basketball training. Receives: Other: Microdosed Plyometric Training |
| Conventional Plyometric Training | Active comparator | Participants completed two plyometric training sessions per week for 8 weeks, with 120 ground contacts per session and 240 ground contacts per week. The training included ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps, in addition to regular basketball training. Receives: Other: Conventional Plyometric Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Countermovement Jump Height
Countermovement jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants performed three valid maximal countermovement jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. The trial with the greatest jump height was retained for analysis. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Countermovement Jump Concentric Peak Power
Countermovement jump concentric peak power was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants performed three valid maximal countermovement jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. Concentric peak power was recorded in watts (W).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Squat Jump Height
Squat jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants started from a stationary squat position with approximately 90 degrees of knee flexion and jumped vertically without a preparatory countermovement. Three valid trials were completed with 60 seconds of rest, and the trial with the greatest jump height was retained. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Squat Jump Concentric Peak Power
Squat jump concentric peak power was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants completed three valid squat jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. Concentric peak power was recorded in watts (W).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Drop Jump Height
Drop jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants stepped from a 50-cm box, landed on the force plates, and immediately performed a maximal vertical rebound jump while attempting to minimize ground-contact time. Three valid trials were completed with 60 seconds of rest. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Secondary outcomes (6)
Change in Reactive Strength Index
Reactive strength index was assessed during the drop jump test and calculated by dividing drop jump height in meters by ground-contact time in seconds. Three valid trials were completed, and the trial with the highest reactive strength index was retained for analysis. Reactive strength index was expressed in meters per second (m/s).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Eccentric Utilization Ratio
The eccentric utilization ratio was calculated by dividing countermovement jump height by squat jump height. Higher values indicate a greater contribution of the stretch-shortening cycle to jump performance.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Three-Quarter-Court Sprint Time
Three-quarter-court sprint performance was assessed over 22.86 meters using an electronic timing-gate system. Participants started from a stationary split stance 0.5 meters behind the starting line and sprinted maximally through the finish line. Three trials were completed with 3 minutes of rest, and the fastest time was retained. Sprint time was recorded in seconds (s).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Hexagon Test Completion Time
Agility was assessed using the hexagon test. Participants completed three clockwise circuits by jumping with both feet across each side of a hexagon and returning to the center while maintaining the same body orientation. Three valid trials were completed with 2 minutes of rest, and the fastest completion time was retained. Time was recorded in seconds (s).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Body Mass
Body mass was assessed using a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analyzer (InBody 270). Participants were assessed barefoot and wearing light sports clothing after emptying their bladder. Body mass was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kilogram (kg).
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Body Fat Percentage
Body fat percentage was assessed using a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analyzer (InBody 270). Participants were assessed barefoot and wearing light sports clothing after emptying their bladder. Body fat percentage was recorded to the nearest 0.1%.
Measured: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Sep 2026
- Study start6 Apr 2026
- Primary completion13 Jun 2026
- Study completion14 Jun 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Athletic PerformanceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either microdosed plyometric training or conventional plyometric training for 8 weeks.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Chongqing Normal University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Chao Wang, Chongqing Normal University
- Investigators
- Ao Xiang, Principal investigator, Chongqing University of Education
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07826104
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CQUE-LL20260630001
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 12 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 18 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Individual participant data will not be shared publicly. No formal IPD-sharing plan was established for this study, and participant confidentiality will be protected.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Microdosed Versus Conventional Plyometric Training on Lower-Limb Explosive Power, Speed, and Agility in Adolescent Basketball Players: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07826104
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CQUE-LL20260630001
- Conditions
- Athletic Performance
- Keywords
- Microdosed Plyometric Training, Conventional Plyometric Training, Adolescent Basketball Players, Explosive Power, Speed, Agility, Reactive Strength, Jump Performance
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Chongqing Normal UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 6 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 13 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 14 Jun 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized controlled trial compared microdosed and conventional plyometric training in adolescent male basketball players. Forty participants aged 12-16 years were randomly assigned to either a microdosed training group or a conventional training group for 8 weeks. Both groups performed the same plyometric exercises and completed the same weekly training volume of 240 ground contacts. The microdosed group completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session, whereas the conventional group completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. The study evaluated changes in jump performance, reactive strength, sprint performance, agility, and body composition.
The study was completed before registration on ClinicalTrials.gov and is being registered retrospectively for transparency.
Detailed description
This study was an 8-week, assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial designed to compare the effects of microdosed and conventional plyometric training in adolescent male basketball players.
Forty male basketball players aged 12-16 years were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to a microdosed training group (MT, n=20) or a conventional training group (CT, n=20). Both groups continued their regular basketball training and performed the same plyometric exercises, including ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps.
The total weekly plyometric training volume was matched between groups. The MT group completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session, whereas the CT group completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. Therefore, both groups completed 240 ground contacts per week and 1,920 ground contacts over the 8-week intervention. Exercise technique, hurdle height, box height, and recovery intervals were standardized between groups.
Outcomes were assessed before and after the intervention. These included body mass, body fat percentage, countermovement jump height and concentric peak power, squat jump height and concentric peak power, eccentric utilization ratio, drop jump height, reactive strength index, three-quarter-court sprint time, and hexagon test completion time.
This study was completed before registration on ClinicalTrials.gov. Therefore, this record represents a retrospective registration based on the completed study protocol and collected study data.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either microdosed plyometric training or conventional plyometric training for 8 weeks.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Microdosed Plyometric Training | Experimental | Other: Microdosed Plyometric TrainingParticipants completed six plyometric training sessions per week for 8 weeks, with 40 ground contacts per session and 240 ground contacts per week. The training included ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps, in addition to regular basketball training. |
| Conventional Plyometric Training | Active comparator | Other: Conventional Plyometric TrainingParticipants completed two plyometric training sessions per week for 8 weeks, with 120 ground contacts per session and 240 ground contacts per week. The training included ankle hops, hurdle jumps, and drop jumps, in addition to regular basketball training. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 12 to 16 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Male adolescent basketball players aged 12-16 years.
- Regular participation in organized basketball training.
- No lower-limb injury within the previous 3 months.
- No systematic plyometric training within the previous 6 months.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Injury or illness that prevented continued participation in the study.
- Participation in additional structured lower-limb training during the intervention.
- Failure to complete either the PRE or POST assessments.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Microdosed Plyometric TrainingThe intervention lasted 8 weeks. Participants completed six sessions per week with 40 ground contacts per session. Each session included ankle hops (2 sets × 10 repetitions), hurdle jumps over 70-cm hurdles (3 sets × 5 repetitions), and drop jumps from a 50-cm box (5 repetitions). Participants rested for 30 seconds between sets of ankle hops and hurdle jumps and 15 seconds between drop-jump repetitions. The total weekly volume was 240 ground contacts. | Other | Microdosed Plyometric Training |
| Conventional Plyometric TrainingThe intervention lasted 8 weeks. Participants completed two sessions per week with 120 ground contacts per session. Each session included ankle hops (6 sets × 10 repetitions), hurdle jumps over 70-cm hurdles (9 sets × 5 repetitions), and drop jumps from a 50-cm box (15 repetitions). Participants rested for 30 seconds between sets of ankle hops and hurdle jumps and 15 seconds between drop-jump repetitions. The total weekly volume was 240 ground contacts. | Other | Conventional Plyometric Training |
Primary outcome
Change in Countermovement Jump Height
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Countermovement jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants performed three valid maximal countermovement jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. The trial with the greatest jump height was retained for analysis. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
Change in Countermovement Jump Concentric Peak Power
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Countermovement jump concentric peak power was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants performed three valid maximal countermovement jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. Concentric peak power was recorded in watts (W).
Change in Squat Jump Height
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Squat jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants started from a stationary squat position with approximately 90 degrees of knee flexion and jumped vertically without a preparatory countermovement. Three valid trials were completed with 60 seconds of rest, and the trial with the greatest jump height was retained. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
Change in Squat Jump Concentric Peak Power
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Squat jump concentric peak power was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants completed three valid squat jumps with 60 seconds of rest between trials. Concentric peak power was recorded in watts (W).
Change in Drop Jump Height
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Drop jump height was assessed using two portable three-dimensional force plates sampling at 1,000 Hz. Participants stepped from a 50-cm box, landed on the force plates, and immediately performed a maximal vertical rebound jump while attempting to minimize ground-contact time. Three valid trials were completed with 60 seconds of rest. Jump height was recorded in centimeters (cm).
6 secondary outcomes
Change in Reactive Strength Index
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Eccentric Utilization Ratio
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Three-Quarter-Court Sprint Time
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Hexagon Test Completion Time
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Body Mass
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Change in Body Fat Percentage
Time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Sep 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Individual participant data will not be shared publicly. No formal IPD-sharing plan was established for this study, and participant confidentiality will be protected.
Related trials for Athletic Performance
Recruiting
Acute Effects of Post-Exercise Hyperoxia on Recovery in Cycling
Athletic Performance, Hyperbaric Oxygenation
Not yet recruiting
Core Strength Training, Anthropometry, and Postural Control in Youth Optimist Sailors
Postural Control, Athletic Performance
Recruiting
Effects of Scapular Training on Adolescent Boxers
Sports Physical Therapy
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Physical Function, Muscle Adaptations, and Performance in Roller Skaters
Athletic Performance Enhancement
Recruiting
UCLA Magnesium Formulation Athlete Study
Athletic Performance, Recovery
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ao Xiang principal investigator
Chongqing University of Education
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Microdosed Plyometric Training and Conventional Plyometric Training in people with Athletic Performance, run by Chongqing Normal University at 1 site in China.
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 4 inclusion and 3 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 18 Sep 2026. 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 China. 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?
Change in Countermovement Jump Height (time frame: Baseline and immediately after the 8-week intervention). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 18 Sep 2026.