Systematic review evaluates the impact of caffeine on physical performance in basketball players, highlighting its effectiveness.
Background The ergogenic effects of caffeine in team sports, particularly basketball, have been widely investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of caffeine intake on basketball-specific skills and general physical and game-related performance outcomes. Methods Eighteen studies employing a blinded, crossover design were included. Random-effects meta-analyses examined the effects of caffeine intake on isolated skills (e.g., free-throw and three-point shooting accuracy, dribbling speed), general physical performance (e.g., sprint speed, jump height, and agility), and game-related actions during real or simulated matches (e.g., assists, total points scored, and performance index rating). Results Low to moderate doses of caffeine intake improved general physical performance, including linear sprint speed (SMD: −0.27; 95% CI: −0.42– −0.13; p < 0.01), repeated-sprint speed (SMD: −0.45; 95% CI: −0.78 −0.13; p < 0.01), single-jump height (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.01–0.29; p = 0.04), and agility, reflected by shorter test completion times (SMD: −0.25; 95% CI: −0.51–0.00; p = 0.05). Low caffeine doses (2.3–3 mg/kg) did not significantly improve basketball-specific skills (i.e., shooting accuracy and dribbling speed), but were associated with enhanced overall performance during real or simulated competition (SMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.10–0.40; p < 0.01), alongside increased perceived muscle endurance (SMD: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.12–0.95; p = 0.01) and power (SMD: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.63–1.39; p < 0.01). Conclusion In basketball, low-dose caffeine primarily enhances general physical rather than isolated technical skills. These findings highlight the importance of dose selection, suggesting that moderate caffeine dosage (>3 mg/kg) may be required to meaningfully influence performance in match-like basketball settings. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251060676 , Identifier: CRD420251060676.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: