ArticlePloS one2025
Acute sprint performance responses to velocity-based versus traditional post activation performance enhancement interventions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of PAPE induced by different squat loads on jump performance in collegiate female basketball players.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Neuromuscular adaptations to auto-regulated velocity-based versus fixed percentage-based squat training in sprinters.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the acute effects of velocity-based training (VBT), traditional strength training (TSG) and a non- strength control condition (CG) on sprint performance in trained individuals. In Session 1, anthropometric measurements of the participants were taken, and then 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat values were determined after explanation, visual demonstration and familiarization of the sprint test and VBT method. In the second session, all participants performed a sprint test for the control condition. In the third session, participants completed the post activation performance enhancement (PAPE) protocol specific to their group after a standard warm-up and then performed sprint tests. In the 0-10 m distance, only the group × time interaction was significant (p = .014); a performance decrease (p = .016) was observed in the TSG group. In the 0-20 m sprint, time (p < .001), group (p = .043), and interaction (p = .003) effects were significant, and a significant performance increase was found in the VBT and TSG groups (p < .001). In the 0-30 m sprint, group (p = .015) and interaction (p < .001) effects were significant; an improvement was observed in the VBT group (p < .001) and a decrease in the TSG group (p = .039). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the VBT protocol produced a more noticeable acute improvement in sprint performance compared to TSG, even when applied with the same load absolute.
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.