SynthesisPloS one2026
Effects of neuromuscular training on physical and tennis-specific performance in youth and young adult male tennis players: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
backgroundNeuromuscular training (NMT) is used to improve physical fitness and tennis-specific performance, but broad outcome classifications, mixed populations, and insufficient separation of accuracy and sprint outcomes have limited previous reviews. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of NMT in male tennis players, particularly youth and young adults.
methodsFive databases were searched from inception to 1 January 2026; the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261337037). Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs involving healthy male tennis players and comparing structured NMT with control or alternative training conditions. Outcomes included stroke velocity, shot placement accuracy, serve accuracy, sprint performance, countermovement jump (CMJ), and agility time. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I, certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed using Hedges' g.
resultsEighteen studies involving 670 participants were included, of which 16 were RCTs and two were non-randomized controlled studies. Compared with control conditions, pooled estimates favored the intervention conditions for stroke velocity (g = 0.95), sprint performance (g = -0.58), CMJ (g = 0.73), agility time (g = -0.89), and serve accuracy (g = 0.47). No significant pooled effect was observed for shot placement accuracy (g = -0.41). For sprint performance, the pooled estimate favored the intervention conditions for the 10 m sprint but not for the 20 m sprint. GRADE certainty was low for stroke velocity and sprint performance and very low for shot placement accuracy, serve accuracy, CMJ, and agility time.
conclusionsLow-certainty evidence suggests favorable pooled effects on stroke velocity and short-distance sprint performance when the included interventions were considered collectively. Although pooled analyses favored the intervention conditions for CMJ, agility time, and serve accuracy, the certainty of evidence for these outcomes was very low, and accuracy-related outcomes remained inconsistent. These pooled findings do not establish the effectiveness of any specific training modality. Further rigorously designed and well-reported RCTs incorporating long-term follow-up are warranted.
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.