ReviewBiology of sport2026
Changes in physical fitness and body composition of athletes after the COVID-19 lockdown: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression, with assessment of the certainty of evidence.
Review in Biology of sport, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review with meta-analysis analysed the effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on physical fitness and body composition in athletes. A comprehensive search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) up to January 2025 (included). Studies were included based on PICO criteria, involving adult athletes, original articles, and any quantitative assessment of physical fitness and/or body composition conducted within one month before and two weeks after the lockdown. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess the risk of bias, while the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach evaluated the certainty of evidence. A total of 14 studies (261 athletes) with a low risk of bias met the inclusion criteria. Narrative synthesis revealed that the effects of lockdowns on athletes' physical fitness and body composition were varied, with consistent impairments (e.g., endurance-related fitness), relative stability (e.g., body mass, CMJ height, maximal strength), and mixed results (e.g., sprinting). A meta-analysis of 11 studies indicated a non-significant effect of lockdown on body mass (effect size [ES]=-0.115, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.214 to 0.164, P=0.797). Similarly, 10 studies showed a variable, non-significant reduction in CMJ height (ES=-0.303, 95% CI -0.655 to 0.045, P=0.097). However, CMJ relative peak power (six studies) demonstrated a trivial-small negative effect (ES=-0.199, 95% CI -0.341 to -0.058, P=0.019). These findings should be interpreted with caution as the certainty of evidence was very low. While evidence remains limited, targeted and individualised training might help mitigate some of the detraining effects observed during a lockdown, particularly in endurance-related fitness outcomes.
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.