ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing curvilinear sprint performance in basketball: The role of stretch-shortening cycle and isometric force-time metrics.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research emphasizes the importance of multidirectional movements in basketball. This cross-sectional study examines the differences in stretch-shortening cycle function, strength qualities, and dynamic and isometric force-time characteristics between basketball players with faster and slower curvilinear sprint (CS) performance. Forty-five competitive young male basketball players performed a basketball-specific three-point CS test and were divided into fast (n = 22) and slow (n = 23) groups based on their best CS times. Drop jump (DJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), and isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) tests were used to calculate the various force-time curve metrics. Independent samples Welch's t-tests with Hedges' g effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were used to compare the force-time metrics between the two groups. In the DJ test, significant between-group differences (p < 0.05) with moderate to large effect sizes were observed in ground contact time (g=-0.896, 95% CI [-93.23, -19.28] ms) and its subphases (braking phase time and propulsion phase time), reactive strength index (g = 0.899, 95% CI [0.10, 0.49] m/s), and five other force-time metrics such as take-off peak force in body weight (g = 0.849, 95% CI [0.24, 1.33] BW). In the CMJ test, significant differences were mostly observed in braking-related metrics, including mean braking power (g = 0.789, 95% CI [0.52, 3.76] W/kg) and mean braking force (g = 0.732, 95% CI [0.03, 0.32] BW). In the IMTP test, no significant between-group differences were found in peak force (p = 0.224, g = 0.392), whereas all rate of force development (RFD) metrics showed significant differences with large to very large effect sizes (g = 0.822-1.407). The largest effect was observed for RFD at 150 ms (g = 1.407, 95% CI [1258.68, 3427.52] N/s), which closely matches previously reported ground contact times during CS, highlighting the importance of rapid force production within the brief contact phase that represents the sole window for actively modifying body momentum during locomotion. These findings suggest that DJ reactive strength index, CMJ braking force-time characteristics, and the rate of reaching maximal isometric force, rather than maximal isometric strength itself, in the IMTP test distinguish CS performance in male junior basketball players.
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.