ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Cluster training versus traditional resistance training on lower-limb muscle strength, jumping, and explosive power performance: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
objectiveCluster Training (CT) has been a potential advantage over Traditional Resistance Training (TT) in improving lower-limb performance remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically compare the effects of CT and TT on lower-limb muscle strength, jumping, and explosive power performance in healthy adults, providing evidence-based guidance for the scientific design of strength training programs.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials published up to July 15, 2025. Eligible studies included healthy adults who underwent resistance training involving lower-limb exercises for at least four weeks, with the primary difference between groups being the set configuration. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias within a random-effects model framework using standardised mean differences assessment were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 16 software.
resultsA total of 25 studies comprising 573 participants were included. Pooled results indicated no statistically significant difference between CT and TT in lower-limb muscle strength (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI: -0.29 ~ 0.17; p = 0.59) or jumping performance (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: − 0.07 ~ 0.47, p = 0.14). However, CT demonstrated a small effect size on lower-limb explosive power performance compared with TT (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.07 ~ 0.50, p = 0.01). Subgroup analyses revealed that in studies with longer training durations (9–12 weeks) and athletic populations, CT elicited smaller gains in lower-limb strength than TT. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings, and publication bias tests showed no significant bias.
conclusionCT appears to be a viable alternative to TT with small advantages for explosive power performance under certain conditions, while strength and jump performance are broadly comparable. In long-term interventions and among athletes, CT may induce smaller improvements in strength compared with TT. Therefore, training goals, duration, and population characteristics should be carefully considered when incorporating CT into practice. Future research should further explore the long-term neuromuscular adaptations and individualized optimization of CT programs.
trial registrationhttps//www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251090980.
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.