This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: Sand-based training (SBT) is widely hypothesized to enhance sprint performance; however, its overall efficacy remains unclear due to inconsistencies in methodologies and findings across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the magnitude of SBT's impact on sprint performance in competitive athletes. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, five databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus) were systematically searched from inception to May 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining competitive athletes undergoing SBT interventions (≥4 weeks) compared to non-sand or no-intervention controls. The primary outcome was linear sprint performance. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16.0; standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Nineteen studies (N = 433 athletes) met the inclusion criteria. SBT significantly enhanced sprint performance in within-group (SMD = -0.92 [95% CI: -1.10, -0.74]; p < 0.001) and between-group comparisons (SMD = -0.64 [-0.87, -0.42]; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses indicated that SBT demonstrated significantly greater improvements compared to alternative training modalities (SMD = -1.13, p = 0.001). In-season training and higher-frequency training (≥3 sessions/week) were associated with larger performance gains (SMD = -0.87 and -1.12, respectively). Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that SBT is a promising strategy for improving sprint performance, with maximal benefits observed when implementing high-frequency protocols during the competitive season. Future research should prioritize standardized training methodologies, long-term adaptive responses, and applicability across diverse athletic populations. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42025637332, identifier: CRD42025637332.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: