## 3 Results
### Results of Meta-Analysis  
Table 2 and Figure 2 represent the results of the meta-analysis. The analysis included five studies comparing the COD performance of CNT and a control group, three studies comparing CNT and PT, six studies comparing CNT and ST, four studies comparing CNT and DT, and three studies comparing CNT and AT. Results indicated that the improvement in COD performance from CNT and DT was similar (ES = \(-\)0.08; 95% CI = \(-\)0.56, 0.39; I\({}^{2}\) = 0.0%; \(\tau^{2}\) = 0.000), and the improvement from CNT and AT was also similar (ES = 0.19; 95% CI = \(-\)0.28, 0.66; I\({}^{2}\) = 0.0%; \(\tau^{2}\) = 0.000). On the other hand, compared to PT, ST, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  
2010 [16] & CNT2 & 8 & 17 & M & Soccer/E &
\begin{tabular}{c} ST + PT + Sprint; \\ 80–90\% 1 RM; 1/2 \\ sessions; 6 weeks \\ \end{tabular} & 505 Test \\ \hline Dodd, & CNT & 32 & & & & & \\
2007 [13] & PT & 28 & 18–23 & M & Baseball/A &
\begin{tabular}{c} ST + PT; 80–90\% \\ 1 RM; 2 sessions; \\ 4 weeks \\ \end{tabular} & T-Test \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._and the control group, CNT led to a more substantial improvement in COD performance. Specifically, the ES of CNT compared to PT was 0.65 (95% CI = 0.18, 1.12; I\({}^{2}\) = 0%; \(\tau^{2}\) = 0.000), indicating a moderate improvement; the ES compared to ST was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.41, 1.36; I\({}^{2}\) = 63.0%; \(\tau^{2}\) = 0.3229), suggesting a moderate improvement as well; and the ES compared to the control group was 1.24 (95% CI = 0.88, 1.61; I\({}^{2}\) = 65.1%; \(\tau^{2}\) = 0.4993), representing a large improvement. No publication bias was identified based on [PERSON]'s test (\(p\) > 0.05). The funnel plot for the CNT comparison is provided in the Supplementary Materials. Table 3 represents the results of the subgroup analysis. CNT interventions showed a significantly greater effect in individuals under 18 years old, with ES of 1.13 (95% CI = 0.84, 1.42; I\({}^{2}\) = 51.6%), compared to those 18 or older, who had an ES of 0.56 (95% CI = 0.19, 0.93; I\({}^{2}\) = 65.8%). A similar trend was observed in female athletes, who exhibited a higher ES of 1.59 (95% CI = 0.82, 2.37; I\({}^{2}\) = 76.8%) compared to males with an ES of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.54, 1.03; I\({}^{2}\) = 58.0%). Similarly, amateur athletes responded better to CNT interventions, with an ES of 1.02 (95% CI = 0.75, 1.28; I\({}^{2}\) = 68.4%), than elite athletes, who had an ES of 0.46 (95% CI = 0.00, 0.93; I\({}^{2}\) = 61.0%). In terms of COD task measures, protocols with more than three direction changes (turn > 3) demonstrated a significantly greater effect, with an ES of 1.08 (95% CI = 0.75, 1.41; I\({}^{2}\) = 72.5%), than those with three or fewer changes (turn \(\leq\) 3), which had an ES of 0.51 (95% CI = 0.24, 0.78; I\({}^{2}\) = 0.0%). Interestingly, no differential effect of CNT intervention was observed in COD performance enhancement among sport, intervention frequency, intervention intensity, and intervention duration covariates (P\({}_{\rm diff}\) > 0.05). Subgroup analyses highlighted greater effects of CNT on COD performance in subjects under 18 years, female athletes, and amateur athletes. Specifically, participants under 18 showed an ES of 1.13, amateurs an ES of 1.02, and female athletes the highest ES of 1.59. However, the finding in female athletes is constrained by very limited data, as only three studies included female participants, necessitating cautious interpretation and highlighting the need for more research in this population.