Comparison of the Linear versus Non-Linear Repeated Sprint Training on Lower Limb Sports Performance Tasks in Team Sport Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

backgroundLinear repeated sprinf training (LRST) and non-linear repeated sprint training (NLRST) are commonly used to improve sport-specific performance in team-sport athletes; however, their comparative effects on key performance outcomes remain unclear.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effects of linear (LRST) and non-linear (NLRST) repeated sprint training on short sprint time (SST), change of direction (COD), aerobic performance indices (API), repeated sprint ability (RSA) performance outcomes and counter movement jump (CMJ) in team sports athletes.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Embase from inception to 31 July 2025. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including competitive team-sport athletes that directly compared LRST and NLRST interventions with a minimum duration of 2 weeks and reported SST as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included COD, API, RSA performance, and CMJ. A total of 13 studies (N = 253 athletes) met the inclusion criteria. Standardized mean differences changes (SMDC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Risk of bias and publication bias were assessed using Egger's test, the trim-and-fill method, and funnel plot inspection.

resultsCompared with LRST, NLRST showed a favorable effect on the primary outcome (SST) (SMDC = 0.479; 95% CI: - 0.077 to 1.034), with larger effects observed in male athletes, high-volume protocols, and interventions lasting ≥ 12 sessions. For secondary outcomes, NLRST also demonstrated a favorable effect on COD performance (SMDC = 0.601; 95% CI: - 0.131 to 1.332), with a consistent moderate effect size (ES) across subgroups. A greater pooled effect of NLRST was further observed for RSAP outcomes (SMDC = 1.210; 95% CI: 0.559 to 1.861), while API showed a small-to-moderate pooled effect in favor of NLRST (SMDC = - 0.492; 95% CI: - 1.206 to 0.221). In contrast, LRST demonstrated a small-to-moderate pooled advantage for CMJ performance (SMDC = 0.418; 95% CI: - 0.236 to 1.072), with larger effects evident in male athletes, elite players, and high-volume or longer-duration programs, with high‑volume protocols demonstrating a large and statistically significant effect.

conclusionOverall, NLRST appears to be more favorable than LRST for improving SST, COD, APIs, and RSAP performance outcomes, particularly in trained athletes and high-volume training contexts, whereas LRST shows a greater benefit for CMJ performance, especially in longer-duration and higher-volume programs. These findings suggest that the selection of sprint training structure should be aligned with the specific performance qualities targeted and the sport-specific physiological demands. However, the interpretation of these results should consider several limitations, including heterogeneity in outcome measures and training protocols, the predominance of soccer-based and male samples, limited reporting of external load monitoring, and variability in aerobic and repeated-sprint assessment methods, which may affect generalizability and mechanistic interpretation.