Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40332702›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2025

Effects of Different Training Methods on Open-Skill and Closed-Skill Agility in Basketball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mingxiang Zhang, Feng Li, Jiao Jiao, Wei Liang, Miguel-Angel Gomez, Aaron T Scanlan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Mingxiang ZhangChina Basketball College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Feng LiChina Basketball College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China. li.feng@bsu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4806-1374
Jiao JiaoDepartment of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China.
Wei LiangSchool of Physical Education, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Miguel-Angel GomezFaculty of Physical Activities and Sport Sciences, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Aaron T ScanlanSchool of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpen-skill and closed-skill agility attributes are pivotal for achieving success in basketball. However, systematic synthesis of evidence regarding the effectiveness of different basketball-specific training methods on agility performance is lacking among basketball players in the literature. Consequently, this systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prominent training methods in improving open-skill and closed-skill agility in basketball players.

methodsUsing keywords related to 'basketball', 'agility', and 'training', we searched for experimental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost databases that were published in the last decade (between January 2013 and September 2023). The included training methods were categorized into five groups, including reaction training (RT), speed training (SpT), strength and balance training (SBT), plyometric training (PT), and stretching training (StrT). The effects of training methods were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals in R software.

resultsA total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 42 separate effects. Studies only assessed the effects of different training methods on closed-skill agility performance, with no open-skill agility assessments used. Improvements in closed-skill agility were apparent between pre-and post-training intervention with most training methods including a large effect for RT [SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.53, 1.19)], medium effects for PT [SMD = 0.62, 95%CI (0.38, 0.86)] and SBT [SMD = 0.59, 95%CI (0.13, 1.05)], and a small effect for SpT [SMD = 0.43, 95%CI (0.13, 0.74)]. While no effect for StrT [SMD = 0, 95%CI (-0.98, 0.98)] was apparent, only one study examined this training method.

conclusionsRT appears to be the most effective method for developing closed-skill agility among basketball players, particularly when implemented in small-sided games. SBT and PT also appear impactful in developing closed-skill agility to similar extents. SpT appears to benefit closed-skill agility to a minor extent with limited research examining the effectiveness of StrT on agility among basketball players. Surprisingly, no studies have incorporated open-skill agility tests when assessing the effectiveness of training methods, which is essential to address in future research. Outcomes from this review provide guidance to basketball coaches and performance staff for selecting training methods that optimize closed-skill agility performance in their players.

Indexed as

BalanceChange-of-directionPlyometricReaction TrainingSpeedStrengthStretching

Identifiers

PMID40332702
PMCPMC12058619

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.