SynthesisPeerJ2026
The effect of repeated-sprint training on performance outcomes in youth athletes: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to examine the effects of repeated sprint training (RST) on performance outcomes in youth athletes. Methods: The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, SportDiscus, Web of Science, SportRxiv, and ProQuest databases using specific search terms. Data extraction involved mean values and standard deviations, and methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals. The heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using I Result: The study analyzed eight studies involving 193 participants aged 13 to 18 across various sports. RST protocols varied in terms of sets, repetitions, and intensities, while the control groups (CG) followed standard curricula. Compared to CG, significant improvements were observed in 10-meter and 20-meter sprints (effect size: 1.01, 95% CI [0.52-1.50]; 0.80, [0.09, 1.52]), change-of-direction (COD) performance (effect size: 0.60, [0.14, 1.06]), and best repeated-sprint ability (RSAbest) with RST (effect size: 0.48, [0.07, 0.89]). However, sensitivity analysis indicated that the pooled 20-m sprint effect became non-significant when the study by Uthoff et al. (2020: DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002914) was excluded. No significant differences were found in vertical jump performance, RSAmean, RSAdec, or maximum aerobic performance. Conclusion: RST enhances 10-m sprint, COD, and RSAbest in youth athletes. Evidence for 20-m sprint improvements should be interpreted cautiously because the pooled effect was sensitive to exclusion of a single study. RST shows limited effects on vertical jump performance, RSAmean, RSAdec, and aerobic capacity; thus, complementary training may be required. Future studies should refine RST protocols, standardize testing, and report maturation to enable maturity-stratified analyses and improve comparability across studies.
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.