SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Match-play data according to playing categories in badminton: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Inertial Measurement Units to Quantify External Load in Men's Singles Badminton Matches: Insights from Set Outcomes and Score Gaps.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2025Article
- Do anthropometric characteristics and physical capacities of highly trained junior badminton players differ according to age and sex?Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Temporal structure of the junior badminton championship across all five events.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review aimed to investigate differences in match-play data according to the five playing categories in badminton. Materials and methods: The systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were conducted on ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies assessing technical-tactical actions, activity profiles, or external and internal loads as match-play outcome measures according to the five playing categories in badminton were deemed eligible. Quality assessment was performed using a modified version of the AMSTAR-2 checklist to compare the outcome measures, effect sizes (ES) and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Of the 12,967 studies that were identified, 34 met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 29 and five were rated as excellent and good quality, respectively. Some individual ESs of activity profiles showed up to large differences (ES ≤ 4.52) favouring the men's compared with the women's singles category. Some individual ESs of activity profiles showed up to large differences (ES ≤ -2.72) favouring the women's doubles category compared with other doubles categories. The overall ESs for the activity profiles were large (ES = -0.76 to -0.90), favouring the doubles over the singles categories in both sexes. Discussion: There are up to large differences in match-play data according to the five playing categories in badminton, each category placing specific demands on the players. Thus, each category requires specific training and testing procedures, what should be considered by scientists and coaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.