Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is the standard of care for ACL injuries, and graft choice may influence the recovery of function assessed with vertical jump tests. Objective: To evaluate the effect of graft type on vertical jump performance in adults after ACLR and to synthesise the differences between grafts. Material and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. The following databases were searched: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, MEDLINE and SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost), up to 31 January 2026. Studies with an unambiguously defined graft type and objective jump tests (CMJ, SL CMJ/SL VJ, DVJ/DJ, SJ) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2, ROBINS-I, JBI and MINORS tools, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Because of substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a structured narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the SWiM guidelines; no pooled analysis was undertaken. Results: Forty-seven studies (>3400 participants) were included. BPTB was associated with greater eccentric-phase asymmetry in the bilateral CMJ in the early/intermediate phase compared with HT, with equalisation after 9–12 months. QT provided jump height comparable to HT but a more favourable dynamic valgus profile. Autograft and allograft did not differ in jump performance. Deficits followed a biphasic course: normalisation of symmetry after approximately 2 years, with reduced height/power for up to 5 years. Conclusions: Forty-two of the studies (89.4%) were non-randomised, and the certainty of evidence was low for one clinical question and very low for all others. Studies comparing BPTB with HT showed an association suggesting greater eccentric-phase asymmetry in the bilateral CMJ in the early and intermediate phase after BPTB, but findings were inconsistent and two studies reported no difference. Evidence suggesting that these differences equalise after 9–12 months derives from between-study comparisons. Jump height did not differ between QT and HT; a single study of 26 patients reported smaller dynamic valgus after QT. Autograft and allograft did not differ in vertical jump performance. Registration: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database and is available under the number CRD420261386307.

W artykule zaprezentowano rozważania na temat roli i współczesnych wyzwań pedagogiki w aspekcie funkcji pełnionych przez badania naukowe oraz dynamicznych zmian zachodzących w życiu społecznych. Pogłębiona refleksja nad jej obecną kondycją skłania do postawienia istotnego dla teraźniejszości i przyszłości pytania o to, czy pedagogika jako dyscyplina naukowa jest w stanie zmierzyć się z powszechnymi oczekiwaniami dotyczącymi skuteczności i jakości wychowania młodych pokoleń narażonych na liczne, nowe zagrożenia cywilizacyjne.

The article examines motor development as an essential component of school readiness and emphasizes its direct relevance to preschool and early school teaching practice. School readiness is presented as a multidimensional construct that includes cognitive, emotional, social, and physical domains, while motor competence is treated not merely as a sign of physical maturity but as a functional condition for effective learning. The authors underline the close relationship between motor, cognitive, emotional, and social development, showing that difficulties in posture, muscle tone, gross and fine motor skills, sensory integration, and body schema may influence attention, graphomotor abilities, classroom behavior, self-esteem, and the child’s adaptation to school requirements. Particular attention is paid to observable motor behaviors that may indicate reduced readiness for school, including rapid fatigue, fidgeting, clumsiness, reluctance to draw or write, excessive movement, withdrawal, and the need for intense sensory stimulation. The article stresses the important role of teachers as everyday observers of children’s functioning in natural educational settings. Their awareness of motor indicators may support early recognition of developmental risks and timely referral for specialist consultation, especially physiotherapeutic assessment. The paper also presents practical strategies that teachers can use without specialized training, such as movement breaks, manipulative exercises, body-schema activities, classroom tasks involving movement, and ergonomic adaptation of the child’s workstation. The authors conclude that motor development should be regarded as an integral element of school readiness and that cooperation between teachers, parents, physiotherapists, pediatricians, and psychologists is necessary to support the harmonious development of the child and prevent future learning difficulties. Keywords: motor skill development, school readiness, preschool education, gross motor skills, fine motor skills, postural control, sensory integration, teaching practice.

Background: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is widely used for pain management; however, the optimal stimulation intensity remains uncertain. This preliminary observational study investigated the association between TENS current intensity and immediate analgesic effects in patients with lumbosacral pain. Methods: Fifty-three adults with lumbosacral pain undergoing routine physiotherapy were enrolled. Participants were classified post hoc according to their preferred stimulation intensity into a low-intensity group (L, n = 26), receiving stimulation at approximately the sensory threshold level, and a high-intensity group (H, n = 27), receiving stimulation at the highest tolerated intensity. TENS was delivered using an ASTAR ETIUS device (100 Hz, 100 μs, biphasic symmetrical waveform) for 20 min. Pain intensity was assessed before and immediately after treatment using a 10-point Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Between-group baseline characteristics were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. Within-group changes were assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and associations between current intensity and pain reduction were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs). Results: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. No significant change in pain intensity was observed in Group L. In contrast, Group H demonstrated a significant reduction in VAS scores following TENS (VAS before Mdn = 5, VAS after Mdn = 4, Z = 4.11, p < 0.001, effect size r = 0.88). In this group, higher stimulation intensity was associated with greater pain reduction (r_s = −0.48, p = 0.011). Conclusions: In this study, TENS delivered at the highest tolerated intensity was associated with greater immediate pain relief than stimulation applied near the sensory threshold. Because of the observational design, post hoc group allocation, and lack of randomization, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether higher stimulation intensities causally improve TENS analgesic efficacy.

Background: High-load resistance training is the primary intervention to counteract sarcopenia; however, it may be contraindicated or poorly tolerated in some older adults. Low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) has been proposed as an option for these individuals. This review compared LL-BFR with high-load resistance training in older adults. Methods: The review followed the PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EBSCOhost were searched for controlled trials (sample mean age ≥ 60 years) with an intervention lasting ≥4 weeks and a parallel high-load arm (≥60% 1RM). Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2, study-level effects were expressed as Hedges’ g without statistical pooling, and the certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. Results: Nine randomized trials (n = 198) were included. For dynamic maximal strength, the point estimates available from four trials were in the direction of high-load training (g 0.04 to 1.14), but confidence intervals were wide, and only one excluded no difference; isometric and isokinetic estimates were inconsistent in direction (g −0.77 to 0.79). For muscle mass and cross-sectional area, study-level estimates ranged from −0.15 to 0.42, and all confidence intervals included no difference. The BFR dose was incompletely reported in four trials. The certainty of evidence was low for muscle mass and very low for strength and functional outcomes; these ratings are upper bounds, because publication bias could not be assessed. Conclusions: No clear difference between LL-BFR and high-load training was observed for muscle mass, whereas dynamic strength outcomes tended to favor high-load training; these data do not establish equivalence. LL-BFR may be considered cautiously when high loads are unsuitable, although no included trial enrolled individuals in whom high-load training was contraindicated. Registration: PROSPERO CRD420261484121.