ArticleBiology of sport2026
Effects of unilateral and bilateral training on performance in team sports athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article 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
Team sports athletes rely heavily on unilateral movements, yet the comparative performance benefits of unilateral training (UT) versus bilateral training (BT) remain controversial. This meta-analysis systematically examined the effects of UT and BT on strength, jumping, sprinting, and agility in team sports, while considering sport type and training program as potential moderators. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases was conducted to identify controlled trials meeting the PICOS criteria. Primary outcomes were strength, jumping (countermovement jump [CMJ], horizontal jump [HJ], reactive strength index [RSI]), sprinting, and agility. Pooled effects were calculated using standardized mean difference (Hedges' g) through a three-level meta-analysis model, with subgroup and moderator analyses conducted. Fifteen studies involving 355 team sports athletes (basketball, soccer, rugby, and ice hockey) were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between UT and BT in overall strength, jumping, sprinting, and agility. However, UT significantly outperformed BT in unilateral strength (g = 0.68, p = 0.007), unilateral CMJ (g = 0.37, p = 0.025), and unilateral HJ (g = 0.45, p = 0.03). No significant differences were found in bilateral strength, bilateral jumping, and RSI. Subgroup analysis revealed no overall differences across sports, but in basketball, UT had significant advantages over BT in sprinting (g = -0.37, p = 0.04) and agility (g = -0.77, p = 0.04). Regarding training types, UT using plyometric training outperformed BT in strength (g = 0.54, p = 0.03) and sprinting (g = -0.30, p = 0.03), while UT with compound training had significant advantages in agility (g = -0.74, p = 0.04). UT outperforms BT in improving unilateral strength and jumping ability, while producing comparable effects in bilateral performance, sprinting, and agility. These findings underscore the value of UT in team sports involving unilateral movements. Future research should explore its long-term effects, recovery from injury, and neuromuscular adaptations to better optimize training.
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.