Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41731268›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026

Effects of Complex Training Versus Ballistic Training on Physical Fitness Abilities of Athletes and Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

Rohit K Thapa, Amritashish Bagchi, Hüseyin Şahin Uysal, Kaushik Talukdar, José Afonso, Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rohit K ThapaSymbiosis School of Sports Sciences, Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune, 412115, India. rohit.thapa@ssss.edu.in.ORCID 0000-0002-1258-9065
Amritashish BagchiSomaiya Sports Academy, Somaiya Vidyavihar University, Mumbai, India.
Hüseyin Şahin UysalDepartment of Physical Education and Sports, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Burdur Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey.
Kaushik TalukdarDiscipline of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
José AfonsoCentre of Research, Education, Innovation, and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Rodrigo Ramirez-CampilloExercise and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, 7591538, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe literature is equivocal on whether complex training (i.e., combining traditional resistance and ballistic exercises within a single session) is superior to ballistic training in improving physical fitness qualities. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of complex and ballistic training on physical fitness outcomes.

methodsA systematic search using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was conducted in electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science). From the included studies, data were extracted for linear sprint, vertical jump (i.e., countermovement jump, squat jump), change of direction speed, and maximal strength. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools for randomized and nonrandomized studies, respectively. The meta-analyses were computed using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model, reporting Hedges' g effect size (ES) with 95% confidence and prediction intervals. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. In addition, the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

resultsA total of 20 studies were initially eligible. However, one study was excluded owing to critical concerns at risk of bias assessment stage. Thereafter, 19 studies involving 537 participants ranging from "tier 0" (i.e., sedentary) to "tier 3" (i.e., highly trained) level were included. Randomized studies presented low (k = 2), some (k = 10), and high concerns (k = 5) regarding the risk of bias, while nonrandomized studies presented moderate concerns (k = 2). Compared with ballistic training, significantly greater improvements were reported after complex training for one-repetition maximum (ES = 1.12, p = 0.010), squat jump (ES = 0.37, p = 0.004), 10 m (ES = 0.67, p = 0.033), and 40 m (ES = 0.72, p = 0.005) linear sprint. Furthermore, a significant moderating effect of training duration was observed for complex training, favoring longer (> 7.5 weeks) interventions. The certainty of the evidence was low for the squat jump and very low for all other outcomes.

conclusionsOur findings suggest complex training to be superior in improving one-repetition maximum squat, squat jump, 10 m, and 40 m linear sprint compared with ballistic training alone. However, 5 m, 20 m, change of direction speed, countermovement jump, and jump power were similarly improved after both training methods. In addition, a longer intervention duration (> 7.5 weeks) may optimize complex training effects. However, the certainty of the evidence was low for the squat jump and very low for all other outcomes. To increase confidence in the certainty of the current evidence, and therefore to provide robust recommendations favoring (or not) the use of complex training (and its prescription factors) over ballistic training to improve participants' physical fitness, more robust studies would be required (e.g., larger samples). PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was published in the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform on 13/04/2024 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/STUZ7 ; Archive link: https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-stuz7-v1 ).

Indexed as

Athletic PerformancePhysical Conditioning, HumanPhysical FitnessAthletesHumansMuscle StrengthResistance Training

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.