Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33245512›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

The Training of Short Distance Sprint Performance in Football Code Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ben Nicholson, Alex Dinsdale, Ben Jones, Kevin Till

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Aging Curve: How Age Affects Physical Performance in Elite Football.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Ben NicholsonCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Room G08, Cavendish Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK. B.t.nicholson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1664-6386
Alex DinsdaleCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Room G08, Cavendish Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK.
Ben JonesCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Room G08, Cavendish Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK.
Kevin TillCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Room G08, Cavendish Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK.
Leeds Beckett University · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShort-sprint (≤ 20 m) performance is an important quality for success in the football codes. Therefore, developing an evidence base for understanding training methods to enhance short-sprint performance is key for practitioners. However, current systematic reviews are limited by (1) a lack of focus on football code athletes, (2) a lack of consideration of all training modalities and (3) a failure to account for the normal training practices undertaken by intervention groups within their analysis. Therefore, this review aimed to (1) conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature evaluating training interventions upon short-sprint performance within football code athletes, (2) undertake a meta-analysis to assess the magnitude of change of sport-sprint performance following training interventions and (3) identify how moderator variables affect the training response.

methodsA systematic search of electronic databases was conducted. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to establish standardised mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. This identified the magnitude and direction of the individual training effects of intervention subgroups (primary, secondary, combined-specific, tertiary and combined training methods) on short-sprint performance while considering moderator variables (i.e., football code, sex, age, playing standard, phase of season).

results121 studies met the inclusion criteria, totalling 3419 athletes. Significant improvements (small-large) were found between pre- and post-training in short-sprint performance for the combined, secondary, tertiary and combined-specific training methods. No significant effect was found for primary or sport only training. No individual mode was found to be the most effective. Between-subgroup analysis identified that football code, age, playing standard and phase of season all moderated the overall magnitude of training effects.

conclusionsThis review provides the largest systematic review and meta-analysis of short-sprint performance development methods and the only one to assess football code athletes exclusively. Practitioners can apply combined, secondary and tertiary training methods to improve short-sprint performance within football code athletes. The application of sport only and primary methods does not appear to improve short-sprint performance. Regardless of the population characteristics, short-sprint performance can be enhanced by increasing either or both the magnitude and the orientation of force an athlete can generate in the sprinting action.

trial registrationOSF registration https://osf.io/kshqn/ .

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceFootballSoccerAthletesHumansSeasons

Identifiers

PMID33245512
PMCPMC8124057
OpenAlexW3109149019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.