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.

backgroundYouth soccer players repeatedly perform explosive actions, short accelerations, linear sprints, decelerations, and multidirectional movements. However, the comparative effects of different structured physical-conditioning programmes remain uncertain.

methodsSeven databases were searched from inception to 3 July 2026 using a final expanded search strategy encompassing plyometric, strength or resistance, sprint, acceleration, speed, change-of-direction, neuromuscular, multicomponent, and combined training. Randomised controlled trials involving healthy youth soccer players were eligible. Intervention arms were classified using operational, content-based node definitions. Construct-restricted primary networks and expanded sensitivity networks were analysed using frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. Hedges' adjusted g was preferentially calculated from post-intervention or final-follow-up means, standard deviations, and sample sizes. Estimates were presented so that positive values indicated better performance. P-scores were treated as descriptive ranking summaries. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted study-level application of the five-domain RoB 2 framework, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA. A post hoc strict-age sensitivity analysis excluded two age-boundary studies.

resultsEighty-nine studies were included in the expanded quantitative analysis, of which 74 contributed to at least one construct-restricted primary network. The primary lower-limb explosive-power, acceleration, 20-m sprint, and planned change-of-direction networks included 55, 20, 25, and 38 studies, respectively. Compared with usual soccer training, plyometric training combined with sprint and/or change-of-direction training showed favourable estimates for lower-limb explosive power (SMD 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03), acceleration (1.19, 0.90 to 1.49), 20-m sprint performance (0.80, 0.33 to 1.28), and planned change-of-direction ability (1.46, 1.13 to 1.80). Corresponding I² values were 34.6%, 21.8%, 65.0%, and 41.0%. Between-design inconsistency was detected in the 20-m sprint (P = 0.0036) and change-of-direction (P = 0.0007) networks. CINeMA confidence for these four comparisons was low, low, very low, and low, respectively. Expanded sensitivity networks showed substantially greater heterogeneity. The highest-ranked intervention differed across outcome domains but remained consistent within each outcome across the three analysis sets. Excluding the two age-boundary studies did not materially alter the principal estimates.

conclusionsPlyometric training combined with sprint and/or planned change-of-direction training produced favourable comparative estimates across the four performance outcomes. However, evidence for several nodes and active-versus-active comparisons was sparse, heterogeneity in programmes and outcomes was present, inconsistency was detected in some networks, and confidence in the evidence was low or very low. These limitations do not support a conclusion that any training category is universally superior. The findings should be interpreted as provisional category-level signals rather than definitive training prescriptions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420261347297, registered on 21 March 2026, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261347297 .