Authors’ Reply to Wewege et al.: Comment on: “The training of short distance sprint performance in football code athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

• Published in: Sports medicine (Auckland) Vol. 51; no. 6; pp. 1333 - 1334
• Main Authors: Nicholson, Ben, Dinsdale, Alex, Jones, Ben, Till, Kevin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01-06-2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Athletes; Causality; Football; Letter to the Editor; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Reviews; Rugby; Sports Medicine; Systematic review; Training
• ISSN: 0112-1642; 1179-2035
• DOI: 10.1007/s40279-021-01447-4

The research designs within our systematic review included comparisons across multiple training subgroups (i.e., primary, secondary, combined-specific, tertiary, combined and sport only), comparing experimental randomised control trials (e.g., [6]), cross over trials (e.g., [7]), between quasiexperimental parallel designs (e.g., tertiary vs. combined; [8]), within training mode comparisons (e.g., secondary vs. secondary; [9]) and exploratory research with no comparative group (n = 7; e.g., [10]). When considered alongside how our review addressed previous limitations within the literature (e.g., several methods not accounted for, small samples of the available literature or a lack of focus on football code athletes) and the further analysis undertaken within our meta-analysis (i.e., heterogeneity, sensitivity, small study effects, moderator analysis) we still believe our review is able to advance the knowledge of short-sprint development. Alcaraz PE, Carlos-Vivas J, Oponjuru BO, Martínez-Rodríguez A. The effectiveness of resisted sled training (RST) for sprint performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.