CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05205278Updated Jan 25, 2022

Effect of Progressive Isolated Core Stability Training

An interventional study of exercise training in CORE STABILITY, Upper Extremity and Physical Performance, sponsored by Ankara Yildirim Beyazıt University. Completed at 1 site in Turkey. Open to female participants aged 12 Years to 16 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-01-25.

Sponsored by Ankara Yildirim Beyazıt University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 9 years 3 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Sep 2012, registered Dec 2021).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
42
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
12 Years to 16 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Forty-two adolescent female volleyball athletes (16.0±1.4 years) were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 was the training group and, in addition to the routine volleyball training programmes, underwent an 8-week (3 days/week) progressive core stability training programme. Group 2 was the control group and only did routine volleyball training, with no core stability training.

Main outcome measures: Shoulder IR and ER strength, medicine ball throw (MBT), modified push up (MPU) and closed kinetic chain (CKC) upper extremity stability tests were used to evaluate physical performance.

Read the detailed description

Most studies have focused on the effects of core stability training on injury prevention and physical performance for the lower extremities . However, little is known about its effect on upper extremity performance. Previous studies suggest that core strengthening could enhance upper extremity physical performance because it might lead to more efficient use of the extremity muscles . Core weakness in overhead athletes with shoulder pain. Insufficient power generation by the core muscles might overload the shoulder girdle to compensate for altered biomechanics during throwing, and this overload made the shoulder prone to sport injuries. A systematic review has suggested, however, that isolated core stability training cannot be the primary component of athletic performance enhancement and that the variability in exercise training protocols, testing methods, study population and sample size among the available studies leads to difficulties in understanding whether or not core stability training enhances physical performance.

There has been no study in the literature investigating the effect of progressive isolated core stability training on upper extremity performance in adolescent overhead athletes. This study therefore sought to investigate the effects of progressive isolated core stability training on shoulder internal (IR) and external rotator (ER) strength and upper extremity physical performance in female adolescent volleyball players. Hypothesized that core stability training would enhance shoulder rotator strength and upper extremity physical performance in these athletes.

02

Conditions studied

  • CORE STABILITY
  • Upper Extremity
  • Physical Performance

Keywords

  • athlete
  • exercise
  • muscle strength
  • flexibility
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Ankara Yildirim Beyazıt University is the lead sponsor of 228 studies on the registry; 53 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
12 Years to 16 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • be between the ages of 12 and 16, enrolled in a similar training program and agree to participate in the study

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Having any surgery / serious pathology of the spinal column,
  • Have had a lower / upper extremity injury in the last 3 months,
  • Sports age is less than 5 years,
  • Severe orthopedic / systemic discomfort during training,
  • Absence from training for more than 3 sessions
  • Family disapproval or reluctance to study
  • Minimal Q-DASH score (0-25)
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
42 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    training group

    Group 1 (n=21) was the training group and, in addition to the routine volleyball training programmes, an 8-week (3 days/week) progressive core stability training programme was applied.

    Other: exercise training

  • No intervention
    control group

    Group 2 (n=21) was the control group, and they only engaged in routine volleyball training: no core stability training was given.

Interventions

  • Otherexercise training

    The core stability training programme was performed 3 days per week over an 8-week period, and each training session lasted approximately 50 minutes.We created a special programme for our study based on the literature; the core stability training programme was divided into 3 phases: easy(1-2 weeks), moderate(3-5 weeks) and difficult(6-8 weeks In the easy phase(phase1), the athlete was intended to gain sensorimotor control that would ensure the smoothness of the neutral spine during slow movements. The participants learned the hallowing technique and how to use this technique while doing core exercises. In the moderate phase(phase2), muscular neural adaptation and neuromuscular facilitation were targeted with the transition to high threshold strength training.In the last, difficult, phase(phase3), subconscious control of movement was taught using combined movement patterns with the aim of transitioning to functional positions and activities.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change from Baseline Shoulder Rotator Muscle Strength at 8 weeks.

    Isometric shoulder IR and ER strength was measured using a handheld dynamometer (Commander Power Track II, J-Tech, USA). The tests were performed with the athletes in a supine position. The shoulder was positioned at 45° abduction, the elbow was at 90° flexion and the forearm was in the neutral position. The supine position was chosen for the test to minimize compensatory movement of the body. At least one practice trial was given to the subjects to familiarize them with the feel of pushing against the dynamometer. Subjects were oriented to each desired action by the tester. The subject then performed the action until performed correctly.

    Time frame: before and after treatment (24 sessions, beginning and 8th. weeks)

  2. Change from Baseline Upper Extremity Functional Tests at 8 weeks.

    The participants were positioned prone with hands shoulder width apart with the trunk held in a rigid straight position on the mat. Push-ups were performed through the full range of motion, as quickly as possible. Participants started the test with their elbows fully extended. They then flexed their elbows until the upper arm was parallel to the testing surface. The participants were instructed to limit head and trunk motion and to keep the trunk position straight. The number of push-ups completed in 30 seconds was recorded. Verbal encouragement was consistently given to all participants .

    Time frame: before and after treatment (24 sessions, beginning and 8th. weeks)

  3. Change from CKC upper extremity stability test at 8 weeks.

    This test was performed in a modified push-up test position. There were two lines on the floor, 30 cm apart. The participants were instructed to move their hands back and forth from each line as many as possible for 15 seconds. The number of touches for each line was counted. The test was repeated 3 times, with a 2-minute rest between each trial and the average of the touches was calculated. The final score was calculated as the average number of touches/height

    Time frame: before and after treatment (24 sessions, beginning and 8th. weeks)

  4. Change from MBT test at 8 weeks.

    The examiner used a marked line on the floor as the starting reference for this test. A mat was placed on the floor and the front of the mat was aligned with the reference line. The participants were instructed to tall kneel (90° knee flexion and neutral trunk position) on the front of the mat with the medicine ball (1.9 kg) held at their chest level against the chest wall. From this position the participants were instructed to throw the medicine ball, using a 2-handed chest pass technique, as far as they could. To minimize momentum, the participants were not allowed to rock back before beginning the throw. The first contact site of the ball was marked, and the throw distance was measured using tape. The test was repeated 3 times, and the average of the throw distances was calculated

    Time frame: before and after treatment (24 sessions, beginning and 8th. weeks)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University,Faculty of Health Sciences, Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Department
    Ankara, Turkey
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Bahr R, Reeser JC; Federation Internationale de Volleyball. Injuries among world-class professional beach volleyball players. The Federation Internationale de Volleyball beach volleyball injury study. Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):119-25. doi: 10.1177/03635465030310010401. PubMed 12531768 ↗
  • Reeser JC, Joy EA, Porucznik CA, Berg RL, Colliver EB, Willick SE. Risk factors for volleyball-related shoulder pain and dysfunction. PM R. 2010 Jan;2(1):27-36. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.11.010. PubMed 20129510 ↗
  • Kibler WB, Press J, Sciascia A. The role of core stability in athletic function. Sports Med. 2006;36(3):189-98. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200636030-00001. PubMed 16526831 ↗
  • McMullen J, Uhl TL. A kinetic chain approach for shoulder rehabilitation. J Athl Train. 2000 Jul;35(3):329-37. PubMed 16558646 ↗
  • Radwan A, Francis J, Green A, Kahl E, Maciurzynski D, Quartulli A, Schultheiss J, Strang R, Weiss B. Is there a relation between shoulder dysfunction and core instability? Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Feb;9(1):8-13. PubMed 24567850 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 25, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05205278
Lead sponsor
Ankara Yildirim Beyazıt University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jan 25, 2022
Start date
Sep 1, 2012
Primary completion
Mar 15, 2013
Completion
Jun 30, 2013
Last update
Jan 25, 2022

Study contacts

Rabia Tugba Kilic
study director · Ankara Yildirim Beyazıt University
Gülsah Basandac
principal investigator · Yeditepe University Department Of Physiotherapy And Rehabilitation
Gülcan Harput
study chair · Hacettepe University, Faculty of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation
Volga Bayrakci Tunay
study chair · Hacettepe University, Faculty of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion