SynthesisScientific reports2025
Force-velocity profile based training to improve vertical jump performance a systematic review and meta analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stronger hearts, weaker leaps? The cardiac power paradox in elite soccer.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Vertical Force-Velocity Profiling in Soccer: A Systematic Review of Evidence, Assumptions, and Limitations.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Neuromuscular adaptations to load-matched isometric vs. dynamic resistance training in Kho-Kho athletes: a pilot investigation.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Beyond hypertrophy: a network physiology perspective on the cardio-neuromuscular trade-off in elite soccer.Frontiers in network physiology · 2026Article
- Adaptive Neuromuscular Co-Contraction Strategies Under Varying Approach Speeds and Distances During Single-Leg Jumping: An Exploratory Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of training optimized to correct deficits in vertical force-velocity (FV) profiles compared to non-optimized training. Outcomes included changes in the FV profile, vertical jump height, and maximal power. Searches followed PRISMA guidelines and were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. As of March 2025, ten studies were identified; four were eligible for meta-analysis. Individually optimized FV-based training partially corrected a force deficit, fully corrected a velocity deficit, and had little effect on an already optimum FV profile. Effects on maximal power were small to trivial and often unclear when compared with non-optimized training. There were small-moderate improvements in jump height with optimized training, but these gains were comparable to non-optimized training. Heterogeneity was small to moderate, and methodological shortcomings were noted in all studies, including those excluded from the meta-analysis. Overall, it remains unclear if FV-profile-based training outperforms standard approaches. Labeling training "optimized" or "non-optimized" may induce placebo or nocebo effects, underscoring the need for blinded, randomized controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.