SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Comparative efficacy of different training modes on physical fitness in soccer (football) players: a systematic review and network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInvestigating the effects of different training modes on the physical fitness of soccer players.
methodsA comprehensive and systematic search was performed to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a cutoff date of November 2025. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed within a frequency-based framework.
resultsA total of 52 studies involving 1,320 participants were included. Regarding aerobic capacity, SUCRA rankings indicated that High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for improving VO₂max levels (SUCRA = 74.3; SMD = 0.53, 95% CI [0.15, 0.91], p = 0.007). Regarding anaerobic capacity, HIIT ranked first for improving 20-m sprint test performance (SUCRA = 90.6; SMD = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.22], p = 0.001), Change of direction (COD) (SUCRA = 81.2; SMD = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.43], p < 0.001), and Repeated sprint ability (RSA) (SUCRA = 73.2; SMD = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.03], p = 0.043). Low-intensity continuous training (LICT) presented the highest probability of effectiveness for the 30-m sprint test (SUCRA = 99.3; SMD = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.03, -0.50], p = 0.001) and Countermovement jump (CMJ) (SUCRA = 90.9; SMD = 0.96, 95% CI [0.16, 1.76], p = 0.019). Small-sided games (SSG) also yielded significant improvements in CMJ (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI [0.03, 0.77], p = 0.033) and COD (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.94, -0.09], p = 0.018). Notably, the HIIT + SSG group (HSG) was associated with a decrease in 20-m sprint test performance (SMD = 1.84, 95% CI [0.69, 2.99], p = 0.002). No training modality showed significant effects on 10-m sprint test performance. For soccer-specific endurance (SSE), HIIT emerged as the intervention with the highest probability of effectiveness for improving Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test level 1 (Yo-Yo IR1) performance (SUCRA = 86.2; SMD = 0.78, 95% CI [0.33, 1.22], p = 0.001).
conclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that HIIT presents the highest probability of effectiveness for enhancing soccer players’ aerobic capacity and soccer-specific endurance (SSE). Furthermore, HIIT was associated with significant improvements across most indicators of anaerobic capacity. From a practical perspective, these findings suggest the potential value of integrating diverse training modalities in a personalized manner, tailored to specific objectives, to optimize physical 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.