Frontiers in physiology · 2026
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.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Ziyang, Shu Fang, Guo Hongming, Zhang Jingfeng, Gao JianLei
Аннотация
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 (I2) and subgroup analyses were performed.
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.
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 (I2) and subgroup analyses were performed.
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.