## 4 Discussion  
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the effectiveness of CNT intervention on COD performance in team-sport athletes. We identified a total of  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Subgroup** & **No. ** & **Hedges\({}^{\prime}\) g (95\% CI)** & **I\({}^{2}\) (\%)** & **P\({}_{\text{diff}}\)** \\ \hline Age (years) & & & & \\ \textless{18} & 12 & 1.13 (0.84, 1.42) & 51.6 & 0.017 \({}^{\star}\) \\ \(\geq\)18 & 13 & 0.56 (0.19, 0.93) & 65.8 & \\ Gender & & & & \\ Female & 3 & 1.59 (0.82, 2.37) & 76.8 & 0.049 \({}^{\star}\) \\ Male & 22 & 0.78 (0.54, 1.03) & 58.0 & \\ Sport & & & & \\ Basketball & 4 & 0.50 (\(-\)0.33, 1.33) & 81.3 & 0.361 \\ Soccer & 14 & 0.87 (0.62, 1.13) & 41.2 & \\ Handball & 3 & 1.34 (0.53, 2.16) & 73.2 & \\ Level & & & & \\ Amateur & 17 & 1.02 (0.75, 1.28) & 68.4 & 0.044 \({}^{\star}\) \\ Elite & 8 & 0.46 (0.00, 0.93) & 61.0 & \\ Intervention & & & & \\ \textless{85\% 1 RM} & 18 & 1.00 (0.67, 1.32) & 70.8 & 0.139 \\ \(\geq\)85\% 1 RM & 7 & 0.65 (0.33, 0.98) & 29.7 & \\ Frequency & & & & \\ \textless{3 week}\({}^{  
twenty-five studies from the keyword and reference search. Compared to PT, ST, and the control, CNT intervention was more effective in improving COD performance; however, CNT was not found to outperform DT and AT. The potentially beneficial effects derived from CNT seem particularly applicable to younger athletes (<18 vs. \(\geq\)18 years), female athletes (female vs. male), less skilled athletes (amateur vs. elite), and those who perform more COD turns (turn \(<\) 3 vs. turn \(\geq\) 3). Moreover, in the studies included, no injuries related to CNT were reported. Overall, CNT appears to be a safe and effective training method compared to routine training alone. The superior effectiveness of CNT over PT and ST can be attributed to its unique combination of heavy-load strength exercises and lighter-load power exercises performed in a set-for-set manner. This approach leverages the post-activation potentiation (PAP) phenomenon, where the performance of a high-intensity strength exercise (e.g., back squats) enhances the subsequent explosive power exercise (e.g., countermovement jumps) [18; 19]. PAP is believed to increase the rate of force development (RFD) and maximal power output by enhancing neural drive and motor unit recruitment [64; 65]. This mechanism is particularly beneficial for COD performance, which requires rapid deceleration, re-acceleration, and directional changes, all of which depend on the athlete's ability to generate force quickly and efficiently. The adaptations resulting from CNT may stem from its ability to target both ends of the force-velocity spectrum: high-load, low-velocity exercises for strength and low-load, high-velocity exercises for power [11]. By integrating these two types of training, CNT optimizes the force-velocity profile, leading to greater improvements in COD performance compared to methods that focus on only one component [17; 31]. This principle of combining strength and power training is also shared by DT and AT, which may explain why no significant differences were observed between these methods in improving COD performance. While CNT alternates between heavy-load and light-load exercises within the same set, DT adopts a sequential approach, completing all heavy-load exercises before moving on to light-load exercises [14; 66; 67]. In contrast, AT combines strength and power exercises by starting with light-load exercises followed by heavy-load exercises [22]. However, these minor differences in exercise sequencing and organization do not appear to produce significantly different outcomes in COD performance when the overall training volume and intensity are comparable [10; 14]. The subgroup analyses revealed several factors that may influence the effectiveness of CNT on COD performance. Younger athletes (<18 years) exhibited a greater improvement in COD performance compared to older athletes (\(\geq\)18 years), with ES of 1.13 and 0.56, respectively.