Back to all available

Effects of complex training on physical performance: an umbrella review

evidence-based-medicine
kinesiology
biomechanics
rehabilitation
sports-medicine

Abstract

This umbrella review synthesized evidence from meta-analyses on the effects of complex training on physical performance. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified relevant meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the 12 included meta-analyses was predominantly low. A critical finding was the moderate to substantial overlap of primary studies across these meta-analyses, which may introduce bias. The certainty of evidence for outcomes was mainly rated as very low to low. Despite these limitations, the synthesized evidence suggests that complex training can improve most physical fitness and athletic performance parameters. Conclusions should be drawn with caution due to the low certainty of evidence and primary study overlap, underscoring the need for careful interpretation and higher-quality future research.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].