ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
The effects of velocity-based vs. percentage-based resistance training on sports performance in trainedindividuals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Kinetic characteristics of Wushu Changbing PiJi: decoupling sex-specific adaptive strategies via functional principal component analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis compared the effects of velocity-based training (VBT) and traditional percentage-based training (PBT) on athletic performance, specifically in muscle strength, jump performance, sprint performance, and change-of-direction ability. METHODOLOGY: Random-effects models in R were employed for the meta-analysis, and study quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.
resultsA total of 17 studies with 348 participants were included in the analysis. The results revealed that VBT produced small but significant improvements in jump performance (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.03, 0.51], p < 0.05) and change-of-direction ability (SMD = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.17, 0.73], p < 0.01) compared to PBT. However, no significant differences were found in maximal strength (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI: [-0.01, 0.43], p = 0.064) or sprint performance (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI: [-0.11, 0.39], p = 0.269).
conclusionsVBT shows small but significant advantages over PBT in improving jump performance and change-of-direction ability. Both methods exhibit similar effects on maximal strength and sprint performance. These findings support implementing VBT for sports requiring rapid force production and directional changes.
trial registrationThe prospero registration number: CRD420251020164.
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.