SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
The specificity of cluster training effects in sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate cluster structure training (CS) and traditional training (TS) in enhancing athletes' motor abilities and explore sport-specific effects. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science (inception to March 2025). Quality was assessed using TESTEX, with meta-analyses calculating SMD (P < 0.05) and subgroup analyses by sport. Results: A total of 11 studies were included, showing that CS outperformed TS in improving athletes' sprint ability (SMD = -0.32, 95% CI: [-0.56, -0.07], P = 0.012), explosive power (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: [0.10, 0.68], P = 0.009) with significant differences. Subgroup analysis further revealed sport-specific effects: CS was more effective than TS in enhancing maximum strength (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.59], P = 0.043), explosive power (SMD = 0.96, 95% CI: [0.26, 1.65], P = 0.007), and sprint ability (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: [-1.15, -0.16], P = 0.009) in volleyball athletes, as well as peak power in soccer athletes (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI: [0.01, 1.36], P = 0.047). Conclusion: CS benefits volleyball and soccer, where explosive power is key. Coaches should tailor CS to sports' energy demands and work-rest ratios. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home, identifier CRD420251015968.
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.