Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34793506›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Effects of velocity based training vs. traditional 1RM percentage-based training on improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed performance: A Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Kai-Fang Liao, Xin-Xin Wang, Meng-Yuan Han, Lin-Long Li, George P Nassis, Yong-Ming Li

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07447258 (Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT07447258 nacompletednot on this map

Comparison of Velocity-Based and Traditional Strength Training Methods on Physiological and Motoric Parameters in Youth Soccer Players

TypeinterventionalSponsorEngin Güneş AtabaşRan2021 to 2021Enrolled24ConditionsAthletic Performance, Muscle Strength, Resistance TrainingArmsVelocity-Based Training (10% Velocity Loss), Velocity-Based Training (20% Velocity Loss), Traditional Strength Training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Kai-Fang LiaoSchool of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6893-1491
Xin-Xin WangSchool of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Meng-Yuan HanSchool of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Lin-Long LiSchool of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
George P NassisPhysical Education Department-College of Education (CEDU), United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0003-2953-3911
Yong-Ming LiSchool of Physical Education and Sport Training, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9654-0199

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere has been a surge of interest on velocity-based training (VBT) in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether VBT is more effective in improving strength, jump, linear sprint and change of direction speed (CODs) than the traditional 1RM percentage-based training (PBT).

objectivesTo compare the training effects in VBT vs. PBT upon strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance. DATA SOURCES: Web of science, PubMed and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The qualified studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis must have included a resistance training intervention that compared the effects of VBT and PBT on at least one measure of strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs with participants aged ≥16 yrs. and be written in English or Chinese.

methodsThe modified Pedro Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Random-effects model was used to calculate the effects via the mean change and pre-SD (standard deviation). Mean difference (MD) or Standardized mean difference (SMD) was presented correspondently with 95% confidence interval (CI).

resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria including a total of 124 participants aged 16 to 30 yrs. The differences of training effects between VBT and PBT were not significant in back squat 1RM (MD = 3.03kg; 95%CI: -3.55, 9.61; I2 = 0%) and load velocity 60%1RM (MD = 0.02m/s; 95%CI: -0.01,0.06; I2 = 0%), jump (SMD = 0.27; 95%CI: -0.15,0.7; I2 = 0%), linear sprint (MD = 0.01s; 95%CI: -0.06, 0.07; I2 = 0%), and CODs (SMD = 0.49; 95%CI: -0.14, 1.07; I2 = 0%).

conclusionBoth VBT and PBT can enhance strength, jump, linear sprint and CODs performance effectively without significant group difference.

Indexed as

Resistance TrainingChinaData CollectionFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID34793506
PMCPMC8601436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.