Florence · Journal of sports sciences 2023 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=666

Skeletal site-specific effects of jump training on bone mineral density in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cited 9 times in the scientific literature.

Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials

PubMed 38305252 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2024.2312052 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Authors conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of PubMed and Cochrane Library databases through February 2022. They evaluated the effects of jump training versus non-jumping control conditions on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers in men and women aged 18 years and older. Fifteen articles covering 19 jumping trials met inclusion criteria, with 18 trials involving 666 participants providing quantitative BMD data.

What was found

Jump training produced a statistically significant increase in femoral neck BMD (% mean difference: +1.50%, 95% CI 0.83% to 2.17%, p < 0.0001), which remained significant across both younger (+1.81%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.65%) and older adults (+1.03%, 95% CI 0.02% to 2.03%). Total hip BMD (+1.26%, 95% CI 0.56% to 1.96% vs +0.06%, 95% CI -0.96% to 1.08%) and trochanter BMD (+0.84%, 95% CI 0.20% to 1.48% vs -0.16%, 95% CI -1.08% to 0.76%) increased significantly only in younger adults. Lumbar spine changes were non-significant in younger (+0.84%, 95% CI -0.02% to 1.70%) and older adults (-0.09%, 95% CI -0.96% to 0.77%). No dose-response effect was detected relative to the median jump-load of 50 jumps four times weekly.

Why it matters

This meta-analysis shows that high-impact jump training provides site-specific osteogenic stimulation, consistently enhancing femoral neck BMD across adult age groups without requiring specialized equipment.

Limits

The total sample size across 18 trials is modest (666 participants, averaging approximately 37 per trial). The abstract provides no data on bone turnover markers despite listing them as an objective, and lacks information on adverse events, long-term adherence, or clinical fracture outcomes. The absence of a clear dose-response relationship limits precise exercise prescription.

Cited by