Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25790793›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2015

The effects of repeated-sprint training on field-based fitness measures: a meta-analysis of controlled and non-controlled trials.

Jonathan Taylor, Tom Macpherson, Iain Spears, Matthew Weston

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Enhancing clarity and methodological rigor in umbrella reviews.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jonathan TaylorDepartment of Sport and Exercise Sciences, School of Social Sciences, Business and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK, jonathan.taylor@tees.ac.uk.
Tom Macpherson
Iain Spears
Matthew Weston

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRepeated-sprint training appears to be an efficient and practical means for the simultaneous development of different components of fitness relevant to team sports.

objectiveOur objective was to systematically review the literature and meta-analyse the effect of repeated-sprint training on a selection of field-based measures of athletic performance, i.e. counter-movement jump, 10 m sprint, 20 m sprint, 30 m sprint, repeated-sprint ability and high-intensity intermittent running performance. DATA SOURCES: The SPORTDiscus, PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched for original research articles. Search terms included 'repeated-sprint training', 'sprint training', 'aerobic endurance', 'repeated-sprint ability', 'counter-movement jump' and 'sprint performance'. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria included intervention consisting of a series of ≤10 s sprints with ≤60 s recovery; trained participants; intervention duration of 2-12 weeks; field-based fitness measures; running- or cycling-based intervention; published up to, and including, February 2014. DATA EXTRACTION: Our final dataset included six trials for counter-movement jump (two controlled trials), eight trials for 10 m sprint, four trials for 20 m sprint (three controlled trials), two trials for 30 m sprint, eight trials for repeated-sprint ability and three trials for high-intensity intermittent running performance. Analyses were conducted using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Uncertainty in the meta-analysed effect of repeated-sprint training was expressed as 95% confidence limits (CL), along with the probability that the true value of the effect was trivial, beneficial or harmful. Magnitude-based inferences were based on standardised thresholds for small, moderate and large changes of 0.2, 0.6 and 1.2 standard deviations, respectively.

resultsRepeated-sprint training had a likely small beneficial effect in non-controlled counter-movement jump trials (effect size 0.33; 95% CL ±0.30), with a possibly moderate beneficial effect in controlled trials (0.63; 95% CL ±0.44). There was a very likely small beneficial effect on 10 m sprint time in non-controlled trials (-0.42; 95% CL ±0.24), with a possibly moderate beneficial effect on 20 m sprint time in non-controlled (-0.49; 95% CL ±0.46) and controlled (-0.65; 95% CL ±0.61) trials. Repeated-sprint training had a possibly large beneficial effect on 30 m sprint performance in non-controlled trials (-1.01; 95% CL ±0.93), with possibly moderate beneficial effects on repeated-sprint ability (-0.62; 95% CL ±0.25) and high-intensity intermittent running performance (-0.61; 95% CL ±0.54).

conclusionsRepeated-sprint training can induce small to large improvements in power, speed, repeated-sprint ability and endurance, and may have relevance for training in team sports.

Indexed as

BicyclingHumansModels, StatisticalPhysical EndurancePhysical FitnessRunning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.