Table 3

Efficacy analysis: baseline and follow-up test means and adjusted mean difference between high-compliance players and control group

Baseline testFollow-up testMean difference*
Estimate (95% CI)p Value
Static jump (cm)
    Control group (n = 103)26.4 (4.3)28.8 (4.2)
    High compliance (n = 68)28.5 (5.0)30.7 (5.7)0.5 (−0.7 to 1.8)0.39
Countermovement jump (cm)
    Control group (n = 103)28.1 (4.1)30.8 (4.4)
    High compliance (n = 68)30.5 (5.3)32.4 (5.6)0.2 (−0.8 to 1.2)1.36
Jumping over a bar (No of jumps in 15 s)
    Control group (n = 102)43.4 (3.8)45.7 (4.6)
    High compliance (n = 68)44.1 (4.0)47.1 (4.9)1.1 (−0.1 to 2.3)0.08
Standing on a bar (no of balance losses in 60 s)
    Control group (n = 102)1.4 (2.2)1.3 (2.1)
    High compliance (n = 71)1.6 (2.8)0.9 (1.7)−0.4 (−0.9 to 0.1)0.10
Figure-of-eight running (s)
    Control group (n = 100)5.57 (0.30)5.53 (0.29)
    High compliance (n = 66)5.50 (0.27)5.47 (0.28)−0.01 (−0.07 to 0.05)0.75
  • Values are mean (SD). Significance level was <0.05.

  • *Adjusted mean difference between the high-compliance players and the control group. Adjustments were performed at individual level (baseline test result, age, floorball experience, playing position and number of orthopaedic operations) and team level (league). Cluster randomisation was taken into account in the data analysis.