ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Unilateral versus bilateral resistance training for explosive jump performance, linear sprint speed, and change-of-direction ability in male basketball players: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of unilateral versus bilateral training on linear sprint and change-of-direction performance in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
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
Background: While both unilateral (UT) and bilateral training (BT) are fundamental for enhancing athletic performance in basketball-a sport demanding high unilateral power and rapid changes of direction (COD)-equivocal evidence and a paucity of consensus exist regarding their comparative effectiveness on key sport-specific metrics. Objective: To resolve this ambiguity, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively compare the effects of UT versus BT on measures of explosive power, linear speed, and COD ability in basketball players. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251149484), we systematically searched six databases until September 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving healthy basketball players. Nine RCTs (n=163 males) were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data were synthesized using random-effects models in RevMan 5.4.1, calculating weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity (I Results: UT elicited superior improvements compared to BT in single-leg countermovement jump height (SL-CMJ: WMD = 0.64 cm, 95% CI [0.27, 1.00], p<0.001) and V-cut performance (WMD =-0.12 s, 95% CI [-0.23, -0.01], p=0.03). Conversely, no significant inter-group differences were found for bilateral CMJ, Reactive Strength Index (RSI), or linear sprint performance (5m and 20m). For the 505 agility test, high heterogeneity (I² = 95%) was observed, and no significant overall effect was found (WMD =-0.17 s, 95% CI: [-0.48,0.13]). For outcomes showing relatively high consistency, such as CMJ, additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed based on age, intervention duration, and season phase. Among these analyses, subgroup analysis identified arm swing protocol inconsistency as a primary source of heterogeneity for CMJ outcomes. Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates a clear task-specific superiority: UT is more effective for enhancing unilateral power and cutting agility, likely via neural and stability adaptations, whereas BT retains comparable efficacy for developing bilateral power and linear acceleration. These findings directly inform evidence-based, modality-specific strength and conditioning programming for basketball athletes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251149484, identifier CRD420251149484.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.