Affiliation “College of Strength and Conditioning Training, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China” was omitted for authors Tingting Wang, Hao Yan, and Hongwen Wei. This affiliation has now been added for author Tingting Wang, Hao Yan, and Hongwen Wei as Affiliation 3. The remaining affiliations have subsequently been renumbered (affecting authors Haiting Zhai, Yuping Zhou, and Zhi Li).
Affiliation “Zhejiang College of Construction, Hangzhou, China” was erroneously given as “Zhejiang College of Construction, Beijing, China.”
The minus signs (−) before some of the data points were omitted, resulting in an incorrect reversal of the positive and negative values (e.g., values “0.80” and “0.21” should be preceded by a minus symbol). A correction has been made to the section Results, Overall effects on COD and jump performance, Paragraph 1:
“Sand training demonstrated superior T-test performance compared to other surfaces (SMD: −0.80; 95% CI: −1.55, −0.06; p = 0.04; I2 = 80%; Figure 2). Similarly, sand training produced better SLJ results (SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.27, 1.43; p = 0.004; I2 = 68%; Figure 3). In contrast, surface type showed no significant effect on CMJ (SMD: 0.10; 95% CI: −0.25, 0.46; p = 0.57; I2 = 35%; Figure 3) or SJ (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: −0.21, 0.53; p = 0.39; I2 = 0%; Figure 3) performance.”
The minus signs (−) before some of the data points were omitted, resulting in an incorrect reversal of the positive and negative values (e.g., values “1.19”, “2.05”, “0.63”, “1.15”, “2.02”, “0.71”, “1.10”, “1.95”, “1.44”, “2.34”. “0.09”, and “0.55” should be preceded by a minus symbol). A correction has been made to the section Results, Subgroup analysis of COD ability, Paragraph 1:
“For intervention duration (Figure 4), sand training lasting over >6 weeks showed better T-test results than other surfaces (SMD: −1.19; 95% CI: −2.05, −0.07; p = 0.007; I2 = 79%). No difference was observed for programs lasting 6 weeks or less (SMD: 0.05; 95% CI: −0.63, 0.74; p = 0.88; I2 = 20%). For training frequency (Figure 5), sand training with three sessions per week improved T-test performance more than other surfaces (SMD: −1.15; 95% CI: −2.02, −0.28; p = 0.01; I2 = 81%). No benefit was found with two weekly sessions (SMD: 0.12; 95% CI: −0.71, 0.95; p = 0.77; I2 = 23%). For session duration (Figure 6), sand training lasting ≤40 min produced better T-test results (SMD: −1.10; 95% CI: −1.95, −0.25; p = 0.01; I2 = 55%). Longer sessions showed no significant advantage. For training background (Figure 7), experienced participants benefited more from sand training (SMD: −1.44; 95% CI: −2.34, −0.55; p = 0.002; I2 = 72%). No benefit was seen in participants without training experience (SMD: −0.09; 95% CI: −0.55, 0.37; p = 0.71; I2 = 0%).”
The minus signs (−) before some of the data points were omitted, resulting in an incorrect reversal of the positive and negative values (e.g., value “0.11” should be preceded by a minus symbol). A correction has been made to the section Results, Subgroup analysis of SLJ ability, Paragraph 1:
“Regarding intervention duration (Figure 8), sand training lasting >6 weeks (SMD: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.00, 2.83; p = 0.05; I2 = 85%) and ≤6 weeks (SMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.04, 1.18; p = 0.04; I2 = 48%) all showed better SLJ results than other surface. However, longer training periods yield superior improvements. For training frequency (Figure 9), sand training performed ≥3 times per week improved SLJ performance more than other surfaces (SMD: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.34, 1.74; p = 0.003; I2 = 72%). No benefit was found with fewer than 3 weekly sessions. For training background (Figure 10), participants without training experience had better SLJ results with sand training (SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.21, 1.15; p = 0.005; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was seen in experienced participants (SMD: 0.96; 95% CI: −0.11, 2.03; p = 0.08; I2 = 82%).”
The minus signs (−) before some of the data points were omitted, resulting in an incorrect reversal of the positive and negative values (e.g., values “0.83”, “1.60”, “0.76”, and “1.48” should be preceded by a minus symbol). A correction has been made to the section Results, Sensitivity analysis, Paragraph 1:
“A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed using Stata (Figures 12A–D). The results were consistent with the original findings for all tests. The T-test showed similar results (new SMD: −0.83; 95% CI: −1.60, −0.06 vs. original SMD: −0.76; 95% CI: −1.48, −0.12). Similar consistency in SMD was observed for CMJ (0.11 vs. 0.10), SJ (0.16 vs. 0.16), and SLJ (0.87 vs. 0.85). The effects of sand training were found to be robust across all analyses.”
The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
change of direction, firm, sand, standing long jump, surface training, systematic review
Citation
Wang T, Zhai H, Yan H, Zhou Y, Li Z, Wei H and Geng Q (2026) Correction: Dose-response relationships of sand training compared to other surface training in improving change of direction and jump performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Physiol. 17:1808452. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1808452
Received
10 February 2026
Accepted
26 February 2026
Published
12 March 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited and reviewed by
Ricardo Ferraz, University of Beira Interior, Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Wang, Zhai, Yan, Zhou, Li, Wei and Geng.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hongwen Wei, weihw@bsu.edu.cn; Qian Geng, 2021240869@bsu.edu.cn
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.