SynthesisJournal of sports science & medicine2026
Effects of Various Exercise Interventions on Sprint Performance and Jump Height in Soccer Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of sports science & medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of different training modalities on lower-limb explosive power, acceleration, 20-m sprint performance, and change-of-direction ability in youth soccer players: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
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
To evaluate and compare the effects of six exercise interventions on sprint performance and vertical jump height in soccer players using a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2000 to 30 September 2025. Thirty-one eligible studies were included, covering Traditional Strength Training, Plyometric Jump Training, Speed Training, Endurance Training, Flexibility Training, and Regular Training. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted. Outcomes were pre-specified hierarchically, with sprint performance and vertical jump height as co-primary outcomes and COD and 1RM as secondary outcomes; secondary outcomes were interpreted as supportive rather than primary evidence. Traditional Strength Training was most effective for 5-m sprint performance (SUCRA = 99.8%; MD = -0.09 s, 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.07), 20-m sprint performance (SUCRA = 89.9%; MD = -0.13 s, 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.06), and squat jump height (SUCRA = 86.2%; MD = 4.40 cm, 95% CI: 2.07 to 6.74). For the 30-m sprint, Speed Training ranked highest by SUCRA (74.2%), but the comparison with Regular Training was not statistically significant (MD = -0.16 s, 95% CI: -0.34 to 0.01). For the 40-m sprint, no intervention showed a statistically significant advantage over Regular Training. Among the pre-specified co-primary outcomes, Traditional Strength Training appears to provide the most consistent benefits for short-sprint acceleration (5-20 m) and vertical jump performance in soccer players. Evidence for 30-40 m sprint performance was uncertain, and secondary outcomes (COD and 1RM) should be interpreted as supportive rather than as the primary basis for overall effectiveness claims. These findings support prioritizing strength-oriented training when short-sprint acceleration and vertical jump performance are key goals; however, the implications should be interpreted cautiously because certainty varied across comparisons and residual uncertainty remains. The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024608868).
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.