Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37658966›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2024

Effects of Combined Uphill-Downhill Sprinting Versus Resisted Sprinting Methods on Sprint Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Maziar J Hamad, Pedro E Alcaraz, Eduardo Sáez de Villarreal

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. A mini-review of mathematical methods in sprint performance.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maziar J HamadUCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport-Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain. mjabarhamad@alu.ucam.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2898-3577
Pedro E AlcarazUCAM Research Center for High Performance Sport-Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9792-6656
Eduardo Sáez de VillarrealPhysical Performance Sports Research Center (PPSRC), Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9583-9287

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwo specific sprint training methods that are present to varying degrees in research and practice are combined uphill-downhill sprinting (UDS) and resisted sprint training methods (RS). Both methods seem to improve sprint performance, but to the author's knowledge a comparison does not exist investigating the differences between the two training protocols and traditional sprinting.

objectiveThe present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated sprint performance changes between combined uphill-downhill sprinting and resisted sprinting methods (sleds, cables/bands, vests, uphill) and how these compared with traditional sprinting.

methodsA literature search was performed on 19 December 2022, in the databases PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science and SCOPUS, which from 22 studies yielded a total of 24 eligible groups (UDS, n = 6; RS, n = 18). Studies that measured sprint performance, had a traditional sprinting control, and used either training intervention in healthy individuals of any age for ≥ 4 weeks were eligible for the meta-analysis. The change in sprint performance from baseline to post intervention was compared between the interventions and their traditional sprinting control group. Outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD).

resultsThe standardized changes in sprint performance between intervention groups and traditional-sprinting controls (negative in favour of intervention, positive in favour of traditional sprint) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were as follows: small for UDS (SMD - 0.41 [- 0.79, - 0.03]; p = 0.03), trivial for RS (SMD - 0.14 [- 0.36, 0.07]; p = 0.19).

conclusionCombined uphill-downhill sprinting was more effective than traditional sprinting, while resisted sprinting was not. It appears that resisted sprint interventions do not increase sprint performance any more than traditional sprinting. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression appear to show differences between sled loads and possible differences across distances tested. The results of this review and meta-analysis seem to warrant further investigations into the possibility that UDS may be a superior sprint training method to resisted and traditional sprinting.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceResistance TrainingRunningHealth StatusHumans

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.