● A weekly research bulletin · est. 2026

The evidence behind what works.

We read the whole sports medicine, rehab & performance literature every week, critically appraise the papers that matter, and tell you what to do about them.

★★★★★ Built for physiotherapists, sports doctors & S&C coaches.

Endurance athletes competing
appraised · not summarised
250
papers screened / week
6
selected for the issue
0
landmark paper paired
016
current issue
01

Summaries are everywhere. Judgement is rare.

the method

Most feeds tell you what a paper said. We tell you whether it’s any good, how big the effect really is, and whether it should change what you do on Monday.

1 FIND

Every journal, every week

We harvest new and landmark research across sports medicine, rehab & performance, the whole literature, not a hand-picked handful, ranked by citation and field-weighted impact.

2 APPRAISE

Critically, not credulously

Each paper gets the same rigorous read: risk of bias, effect size vs. clinical significance, the gap it doesn’t fill, and the landmark study it builds on or contradicts.

3 REVIEW

Reviewed before it’s published

Nothing ships on autopilot. Every issue is reviewed before it’s published, the same structured appraisal, applied consistently, every week. Rigour is the product.

Clinician assessing an athlete

● signal ÷ noise

We read 200+ papers so you read 5.

The ones that matter, plus the one that’s overhyped, appraised for what they actually change in the clinic and on the field.

02

The lead

issue 016 · 9 Nov 2026

One paper, appraised. The same seven-field record every week, learn the shape once, read fast forever.

Sports medicine - open · 2026
Female Team-Sport Athletes' Physical Fitness and Jump Performance Kinematics After Plyometric Jump Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Strength & ConditioningAthletic Training / Sports TherapySports & Exercise MedicineFemale athlete healthStrength & hypertrophy
Worth knowing
The paper
Systematic review and meta-analysis, 31 studies (25 meta-analysed), n=609 adult female team-sport athletes.
Found
Compared to controls, plyometric jump training (PJT) improved CMJ height (Hedges g=0.550, p<0.001), CMJ peak concentric velocity (g=0.623, p=0.011), drop jump reactive strength index (g=0.926, p=0.001), drop jump height (g=0.721, p=0.002), 10m sprint (g=0.712, p=0.032), 20m sprint (g=0.709, p<0.001), 30m sprint (g=1.018, p=0.001), Illinois agility time (g=1.225, p<0.001) and T-test sprint time (g=0.965, p<0.001); interventions of 8+ weeks outperformed those of 6 weeks or less on several measures.
Appraisal
The included studies are PEDro-rated, meaning this is randomised/controlled-trial evidence, so the finding is causal (PJT improves these jump and sprint metrics in adult female team-sport athletes), not just an association. What's uncertain is the magnitude: 20 of 31 studies carried only moderate risk of bias, heterogeneity reached ~73% in four of the pooled outcomes, and GRADE certainty sits at low-to-moderate, so treat the quoted effect sizes (g=0.55 to 1.22) as a plausible range for justifying a programme, not a number to promise an individual athlete.
The gap
The methods state 95% CIs were calculated for every pooled estimate, but this abstract excerpt doesn't show them, so the width of uncertainty around each effect size isn't visible from here. Moderate heterogeneity in four of the nine meta-analysed outcomes (up to I2=73%) also means some pooled estimates may be smoothing over real differences in programming and comparator quality. Worth pulling the full results table and any sensitivity analysis excluding the two high-RoB studies before quoting a specific number to a coach or athlete.
Landmark
This extends the broader plyometric-training evidence base built largely on male and youth athletes (foundational work such as de Villarreal et al.'s plyometric-training meta-analyses) into a population, adult female team-sport athletes, that has been comparatively under-studied, rather than overturning any single landmark trial.
On Monday
For a clinician or S&C coach already prescribing plyometrics to female team-sport athletes, this supports continuing and favours programming at 8 or more weeks rather than short blocks for sprint and agility gains; it does not establish a scenario where PJT should newly start where it wasn't already indicated.
Verdict
62 / 100
CONF MODERATE
03

The five

the rest of what mattered
01
A single-session field test's RCP correlates with cycling time-trial speed, but explains only about a third of the variance, in 28 men.Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026
Strength & ConditioningSports & Exercise MedicineEndurance & physiologyCohort / observational
Worth knowing
02
Harvesting gracilis for ACL graft leaves it (and possibly adductor longus) smaller at a year, but we don't yet know if that matters functionally.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
Sports & Exercise MedicineRehabilitationKneeHip & Groin
Worth knowing
03
Soccer players' deceleration fatigues far faster than their sprinting, but that fatigue didn't dent their jumping or kicking in this small study.Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026
Sports & Exercise MedicineStrength & ConditioningAthletic Training / Sports TherapyLoad management
Watch this space
04
In 18 elite judokas, block and undulating strength plans gave equal judo-specific gains, but block planning cost more physiological strain for no extra benefit.Journal of strength and conditioning research · 2026
Strength & ConditioningAthletic Training / Sports TherapyLoad managementStrength & hypertrophy
Watch this space
05
Male soccer players jump higher via more propulsion-phase knee/hip work, and landing-phase knee absorption also differed by sex even though whole-body landing mechanics didn't, but age-mismatched groups and a tiny effect size make this hypothesis-generating, not clinic-ready.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
Sports & Exercise MedicineStrength & ConditioningKneeACL & knee ligament
Watch this space

Every member reads the full critique on every paper, free. Paid plans add on-demand appraisals, put any paper you want through the same critical appraisal.

03

More than a bulletin. Your CPD, done.

for members

Reading is only half of CPD. Dose-Response turns every appraisal into a reflection, maps it to your regulator’s standards, and builds an audit-ready portfolio, automatically.

The Reflect tool, react to each appraisal and relate it to a real patient
Reflect, push back on our appraisal, bring it to a real patient.
The CPD portfolio, a year of reflections mapped to your standards
Portfolio, a year of CPD, mapped and audit-ready.

Reflect, don’t just read

We hand you the critique and the provocations; you write your own, and relate it to a patient you’ve actually treated this year.

Watch your thinking change

A timeline of where your judgement has moved, and what moved it, the reflective practice regulators want to see.

One home for all your CPD

Log courses, conferences and reading alongside your reflections. Your whole CPD record lives in one place.

Verifiable certificates

Export an audit-ready portfolio; every certificate carries a reference an employer or regulator can check online.

Our promise

Your record is always yours

Your CPD is never locked behind a paywall. Pause or cancel any time and your portfolio stays read-only and downloadable, never deleted. The work you put in is yours to keep.

Built around your regulator

HCPCCSPGMCUKSCA

Tell us your discipline and we map every reflection to the standards that matter, the HCPC CPD standards and Standards of Proficiency for physios and allied health professionals, the CSP’s evidence-based and reflective practice expectations, and GMC Good Medical Practice for doctors’ appraisal and revalidation. Your export is formatted to evidence them.

04

Your CPD, in your pocket.

iOS & Android

Reflect between patients, log a case at the bedside, check the workload ratio pitch-side. The whole member experience, This week, Reflect, Portfolio and your tools, as a native app.

This week's tailored issue in the Dose-Response app
The Reflect tool in the Dose-Response app
The CPD portfolio in the Dose-Response app
Download onthe App Store Get it onGoogle Play

Now on iPhone, iPad and Android. Free to download; subscribe to unlock the full member experience.

04

Free forever, or go deeper.

access

The full bulletin is free for every member, every critique in full, your CPD portfolio, Reflect, Cases and the searchable archive. Paid plans add one thing: appraise any paper you want, on demand, the same critical appraisal, run on the papers you choose, for less than a coffee a month.

Free
£0 forever

The whole bulletin and CPD suite, everything but the on-demand appraiser.

Subscribe free
  • The weekly email digest
  • Full critique on every paper, lead + all five
  • Reflect, Cases & CPD portfolio, audit-ready
  • Collections & the searchable archive
  • Tailored to your interests
Plus
£45 /year

£3.75/mo, billed annually — save 25%

Start free trial
  • Everything in Free, plus:
  • Appraise any paper you want, on demand
  • Paste a study or search PubMed, get the full critique
  • 5 on-demand appraisals / month
Most popular
Pro
£90 /year

£7.50/mo, billed annually — save 25%

Start free trial
  • Everything in Plus, plus:
  • 50 on-demand appraisals / month
  • Topic alerts → one-tap appraise (coming soon)
  • Side-by-side compare · auto-CPD prompts (coming soon)
Unlimited
£270 /year

£22.50/mo, billed annually — save 25%

Start free trial
  • Everything in Pro, plus:
  • Unlimited on-demand appraisals
  • Batch appraise a whole reading list (coming soon)
  • Living topic dashboards (coming soon)
  • Deepest appraisals + earliest features

Cancel any time, keep your CPD. If you pause or stop your membership, your reflections and portfolio stay yours, read-only and downloadable, never locked away or deleted.

Clinics, universities & teams: per-seat Plus, Pro or Unlimited on one invoice. Get in touch →

05

Standards

reviewed before publishing
“Statistically significant isn’t the same as significant. Our whole job is telling you the difference, and whether it changes anything.”

— The Dose-Response editorial team

Appraisal, not summary
Risk of bias, effect size, generalisability, the judgement layer everyone else skips.
Latest + Landmark
Every new paper placed against the foundational study it builds on or overturns.
Reviewed before it ships
The week’s research is read and appraised at scale, then every issue is reviewed before it’s published. Nothing goes out on autopilot.
Clinician treating a patient