|
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). |
