ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Integrative neuromuscular training on static and dynamic balance in team sport athletes: 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.
- Effects of a six-week combined tire-squat and explosive-kicking programme on roundhouse-kick performance in highly trained male Muay Thai athletes: a parallel-group controlled trial.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrative neuromuscular training (INT) is proposed to enhance static and dynamic balance in team athletes by improving sensorimotor control. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated INT effects across these two domains.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost), and the Web of Science Core Collection from database inception through 3 March 2025. Random-effects and multilevel meta-analyses were conducted in R (meta, metafor). Standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) were pooled using inverse-variance weighting. For datasets with multiple effects per study, we fitted multilevel random-effects models (metafor::rma.mv) with random intercepts for study and within-study effects, estimating variance components (τ²) via REML. We report 95% confidence intervals, I², τ², and 95% prediction intervals. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with GRADE; small-study effects were examined using Egger's regression (k ≥ 10) and bubble plots.
resultsFifteen randomized controlled trials (n = 609 athletes) were included. Overall risk of bias (RoB 2) was judged as some concerns across studies. INT improved dynamic balance (SMD = 1.48, 95% CI 0.97-1.99; I² = 86.8) and static balance (SMD = 0.89, 95% CI 0.32-1.47; I² = 51.2). Dynamic balance improved more with ≥ 3 sessions/week (SMD = 2.01, 95% CI 1.23-2.80; I² = 91.2%), whereas static balance benefited more from programs ≤ 8 weeks (SMD = 1.16, 95% CI 0.77-1.54).
conclusionsINT improves balance in team athletes, with larger gains for dynamic tasks. Dynamic balance was preferentially enhanced by ≥ 3 sessions/week, while static balance gains were optimal at ≤ 8 weeks. Evidence certainty was moderate for dynamic balance and low for static balance.
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.