Zhang Mingxiang, Li Feng, Jiao Jiao, Liang Wei, Gomez Miguel-Angel, Scanlan Aaron T
China Basketball College, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China.
Sports Med Open. 2025 May 7;11(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s40798-025-00842-9.
Open-skill and closed-skill agility attributes are pivotal for achieving success in basketball. However, systematic synthesis of evidence regarding the effectiveness of different basketball-specific training methods on agility performance is lacking among basketball players in the literature. Consequently, this systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of prominent training methods in improving open-skill and closed-skill agility in basketball players.
Using keywords related to 'basketball', 'agility', and 'training', we searched for experimental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost databases that were published in the last decade (between January 2013 and September 2023). The included training methods were categorized into five groups, including reaction training (RT), speed training (SpT), strength and balance training (SBT), plyometric training (PT), and stretching training (StrT). The effects of training methods were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals in R software.
A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 42 separate effects. Studies only assessed the effects of different training methods on closed-skill agility performance, with no open-skill agility assessments used. Improvements in closed-skill agility were apparent between pre-and post-training intervention with most training methods including a large effect for RT [SMD = 0.86, 95% CI (0.53, 1.19)], medium effects for PT [SMD = 0.62, 95%CI (0.38, 0.86)] and SBT [SMD = 0.59, 95%CI (0.13, 1.05)], and a small effect for SpT [SMD = 0.43, 95%CI (0.13, 0.74)]. While no effect for StrT [SMD = 0, 95%CI (-0.98, 0.98)] was apparent, only one study examined this training method.
RT appears to be the most effective method for developing closed-skill agility among basketball players, particularly when implemented in small-sided games. SBT and PT also appear impactful in developing closed-skill agility to similar extents. SpT appears to benefit closed-skill agility to a minor extent with limited research examining the effectiveness of StrT on agility among basketball players. Surprisingly, no studies have incorporated open-skill agility tests when assessing the effectiveness of training methods, which is essential to address in future research. Outcomes from this review provide guidance to basketball coaches and performance staff for selecting training methods that optimize closed-skill agility performance in their players.
开放技能和封闭技能的敏捷属性对于在篮球运动中取得成功至关重要。然而，文献中缺乏关于不同篮球专项训练方法对篮球运动员敏捷表现有效性的系统证据综合。因此，本项系统评价及荟萃分析旨在评估主要训练方法对提高篮球运动员开放技能和封闭技能敏捷性的有效性。
我们使用与“篮球”“敏捷性”和“训练”相关的关键词，在PubMed、科学网和EBSCOhost数据库中搜索过去十年（2013年1月至2023年9月）发表的实验研究。纳入的训练方法分为五组，包括反应训练（RT）、速度训练（SpT）、力量与平衡训练（SBT）、增强式训练（PT）和伸展训练（StrT）。在R软件中，使用标准化均数差（SMD）及95%置信区间总结训练方法的效果。
共有29项研究符合纳入标准，包含42个独立效应。研究仅评估了不同训练方法对封闭技能敏捷表现的影响，未使用开放技能敏捷性评估。在训练前和训练后干预之间，大多数训练方法在封闭技能敏捷性方面有明显改善，其中RT有较大效应[SMD = 0.86，95%CI（0.53，1.19）]，PT和SBT有中等效应[PT：SMD = 0.62，95%CI（0.38，0.86）；SBT：SMD = 0.59，95%CI（0.13，1.05）]，SpT有较小效应[SMD = 0.43，95%CI（0.13，0.74）]。虽然StrT没有明显效应[SMD = 0，95%CI（-0.98，0.98）]，但仅有一项研究考察了这种训练方法。
RT似乎是培养篮球运动员封闭技能敏捷性最有效的方法，尤其是在小型比赛中实施时。SBT和PT在培养封闭技能敏捷性方面似乎也有类似程度的显著效果。SpT似乎在一定程度上有益于封闭技能敏捷性，而关于StrT对篮球运动员敏捷性有效性的研究有限。令人惊讶的是，在评估训练方法的有效性时，没有研究纳入开放技能敏捷性测试，这是未来研究中必须解决的问题。本综述的结果为篮球教练和体能教练选择优化球员封闭技能敏捷表现的训练方法提供了指导。
