## 3 Results
### Results of the Meta-Analysis
#### 3.4.2 Meta-Analysis Results on Sprint Performance Results  
The final inclusion of 26 studies involved 12 studies with 176 participants comparing the acute effects of different CAs on sprint performance. As shown in Supplementary Files S9-S11, the heterogeneity tests for Supplementary Files S9 and S10 indicated no heterogeneity (\(I^{2}\) = 0% and 30.76%, respectively), leading to the use of a fixed-effects model for the analysis. However, the heterogeneity test for Supplementary Files S11 showed high heterogeneity (\(I^{2}\) = 85.87%), necessitating the use of a random-effects model. The meta-analysis revealed combined effect sizes, indicating that the PAPE from the exercise interventions effectively enhanced sprint performance for the athletes [[PERSON]'s \(g\) = \(-\)0.11, \(-\)0.44, and \(-\)0.32; 95%CI: (\(-\)0.22, 0.00), (\(-\)0.63, \(-\)0.25), and (\(-\)0.49, \(-\)0.13); \(p\) = 0.04, \(<\)0.001, and \(<\)0.001, respectively (\(p<0.05\))].  
Subgroup analysis of the CAs was categorized into resistance exercises, glymetric exercises, and mixed exercises. The results from Table 2A-C for subgroup analysis for resistance exercises reported effect sizes indicating that resistance exercises in acute intervention can effectively improve subsequent sprint speed in athletes [\(p\) = 0.014, \(<\)0.001, and \(<\)0.001 (\(p<0.05\))]. However, the glymetric exercises' \(p\) = 0.883 and 0.968 (\(p>0.05\)), and mixed exercises' \(p\) = 0.507 (\(p>0.05\)), implying that acute interventions using glymetric or mixed exercises did not affect subsequent sprint speed improvement.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **No. of Studies** & **Hedges’s \(g\)** & **(95\% Conf. Interval)** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**A**} \\ \hline Resistance exercises & 22 & 0.185 & 0.015 0.355 & 0.003 \\ Mixed exercises & 4 & 0.163 & \(-\)0.024 0.549 & 0.409 \\ Plyometric exercises & 3 & 0.314 & \(-\)0.117 0.744 & 0.154 \\ Overall & 29 & 0.196 & 0.050 0.343 & 0.009 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**B**} \\ \hline Resistance exercises & 12 & 0.235 & 0.020 0.449 & 0.032 \\ Mixed exercises & 3 & 0.163 & \(-\)0.288 0.679 & 0.429 \\ Plyometric exercises & 3 & 0.61 & \(-\)0.422 0.544 & 0.805 \\ Overall & 18 & 0.204 & 0.030 0.386 & 0.027 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**C**} \\ \hline Resistance exercises & 23 & 0.511 & 0.306 0.717 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Plyometric exercises & 12 & \(-\)0.177 & \(-\)0.335 \(-\)0.020 & 0.027 \\ Overall & 35 & 0.232 & 0.059 0.405 & 0.009 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: (**A**) Different CAs for athletes’ CMJ height PAPE sub-group analysis (baseline\(-\)controlled, single-arm studies); (**B**) Different CAs for athletes’ CMJ height PAPE sub-group analysis (non-baseline\(-\)controlled studies); (**C**) Different CAs for athletes’ CMJ height PAPE sub\(-\)group analysis (baseline\(-\)controlled studies).  
Figure 1: (**A**) presents the bias funnel plot for baseline-controlled, single\(-\)arm studies; (**B**) shows the bias funnel plot for non\(-\)baseline-controlled studies; and (**C**) displays the bias funnel plot for baseline\(-\)controlled studies.  
The funnel plot results indicated asymmetry, as shown in Figure 2A-C. The [PERSON]'s test for Figure 2A detected publication bias among the included studies (\(p\) = 0.001 \(<\) 0.1). After applying the trim-and-fill method, the results remained unchanged, suggesting the results are acceptable [[PERSON]'s \(g\) = \(-\)0.111; 95%CI: (\(-\)0.218, \(-\)0.003)]. No clear publication bias was detected for Figure 2B (\(p\) = 0.22 \(>\) 0.1). The [PERSON]'s test for Figure 2C indicated significant publication bias (\(p\) \(<\) 0.1), and the trim-and-fill method adjusted the effect size change. This change necessitates a cautious interpretation of these results [[PERSON]'s \(g\) = \(-\)0.316; 95%CI: (\(-\)0.504, \(-\)0.128) to [PERSON]'s \(g\) = \(-\)0.131; 95%CI: (\(-\)0.318, 0.055)].