Background <p>Neuromuscular profiling (NP) provides an objective means of assessing neuromuscular function to guide targeted training interventions. However, coaching terminology used to describe NP outputs (e.g., ‘explosive’, ‘springy’) is often inconsistently defined or applied, leading to misinterpretation and limiting effective use. Variations in how NP metrics are calculated and interpreted further complicate comparisons across studies and practical applications. Despite their widespread use in sport science and performance settings, no framework currently exists to evaluate whether the terminology and interpretations associated with NP metrics accurately represent measured outputs and intended neuromuscular traits.</p> Objectives <p>This review aimed to evaluate whether terms/labels used across six commonly applied NP methods—Dynamic Strength Index, Eccentric Utilisation Ratio, Force–Velocity Profile, Impulse Analysis, Reactive Strength Index, and Reactive Strength Index Modified—accurately represent the neuromuscular characteristics they are intended to measure. A secondary objective was to identify methodological limitations that may affect the interpretation, standardisation, and practical application of these methods.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus identified 1653 eligible studies, of which 184 met inclusion criteria. A modified quality scale was used to assess study relevance. Extracted data included reported output values, assigned terms/labels, underlying mechanisms, and supporting evidence. Results were grouped by explanatory themes, with terms/labels identified and examined based on the underlying mechanisms they were intended to represent. Findings were then synthesised to identify patterns in terminology, interpretation, and limitations.</p> Results <p>A total of 209 NP methods were evaluated (147 ratio-based, 62 non-ratio-based). NP interpretation was task-dependent and influenced by methodological variability. Inconsistency was found in the terminology, definitions, and calculations used to derive NP metrics. Several studies attempted to classify athletes based on NP metrics, though few accounted for constituent components in interpretation. Commonly used terms/labels included: ‘explosive/explosiveness’ (indicating greater rate of force development), ‘spring/springy’ (suggesting effective stretch–shortening cycle utilisation), ‘stiff/compliant’ (representing a continuum of lower extremity stiffness), and ‘strong/weak’ (reflecting maximal force production capability).</p> Conclusions <p>This review offers a consolidated synthesis of NP terminology, interpretation, and methodological considerations. Clarifying terminology and addressing limitations may improve communication between researchers and practitioners, supporting more standardised use of NP tools.</p>