Relevance and effectiveness of combined resistance and balance training to improve balance and muscular fitness in healthy youth and youth athletes: a scoping review

Background Balance and resistance training applied as single-mode interventions have proven to enhance measures of balance and/or muscular fitness in youth and youth athletes. Less is known on the effectiveness of combined or sequenced balance and resistance training in youth and youth athletes. Objective The objective of this scoping review was to describe the effects of concurrently performed balance and resistance training (i.e., metastable resistance training) and different sequencing schemes of balance and resistance training on measures of balance and/or muscular fitness in healthy youth and youth athletes. We additionally aimed to identify knowledge gaps in the literature. Methods According to the principles of a scoping review, we followed a broad research question, identified gaps in the literature, and reported findings on the level of single studies but did not aggregate and meta-analyze outcomes across studies. For this purpose, systematic literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases PubMed (including MEDLINE), Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus from inception until August 2022. We included metastable resistance training and sequenced balance and resistance training studies in healthy youth and youth athletes aged 6–18 years that investigated the training-induced effects on measures of balance (e.g., stork balance test) and muscular fitness (e.g., countermovement jump test) in contrast to active/passive controls. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the risk of bias. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) was applied for the whole scoping review on levels A (high strength of recommendation) to C (low strength of recommendation) and for individual studies on levels 1 (high-quality evidence) to 3 (low-quality evidence). Results The strength of recommendation for the scoping review was level B based on inconsistent or limited-quality evidence. Eleven randomized controlled trials were eligible to be included in this scoping review and each study was ...