Supplementary Table S33. Timing-method sensitivity analysis for sprint outcomes. Outcome Main analysis: key contrast (MD, 95% CI) Sensitivity analysis excluding non-photoelectric/electronic timing studies: key contrast (MD, 95% CI) Interpretation 5-m sprint Traditional Strength Training vs Regular Training: -0.09 s (-0.11 to -0.07) -0.09 s (-0.11 to -0.07) Unchanged; conclusion robust 20-m sprint Traditional Strength Training vs Regular Training: -0.13 s (-0.20 to -0.06) -0.13 s (-0.19 to -0.05) Materially unchanged; conclusion robust 30-m sprint Speed Training vs Regular Training: -0.16 s (-0.34 to 0.01) -0.14 s (-0.31 to 0.03) Direction preserved, but imprecision remained; no statistical significance 40-m sprint Endurance Training vs Regular Training: -0.21 s (-0.45 to 0.03) -0.18 s (-0.41 to 0.05) Direction preserved, but uncertainty remained; no statistical significance For sprint outcomes, the sensitivity analysis excluded studies using video/app-based timing methods, while studies with unclear timing-method reporting were retained to avoid excessive fragmentation of sparse networks. Key contrasts were selected to match the most decision-relevant comparisons reported in the main text. For sprint outcomes, negative MDs indicate faster sprint times.