ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Relative age effects in Rugby union and Rugby league: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Relative Age Effects (RAEs) are prominent factors affecting youth sport participation and talent identification and selection processes. In rugby, RAEs appear to be prevalent in both Rugby League (RL) and Rugby Union (RU), yet no study has quantitatively synthesised the available evidence across codes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify RAE prevalence, magnitude, and moderating factors (i.e., sex, age, and competition level) across rugby codes, using the extreme-quartile contrast between Q1 and Q4. Methods: A systematic search in CINAHL, Ovid, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 26 eligible studies. Distribution data were synthesised using odds ratio meta-analyses with an inverse-variance random-effects model and separate analyses by sex, age, and competition level. Results: Male players showed a significant overrepresentation in Q1 vs. Q4 (34.8% vs. 16.9%; OR = 1.99), with smaller but similar effects in female players (27.5% vs. 23.6%; OR = 1.15). In males, RAEs were stronger in youth than senior categories (OR = 2.42 vs. 1.41), and in younger (U7-U14; U15-U17) vs. older age groups (U18-U20). Discussion: Descriptively, RAEs appeared larger at higher competition levels, particularly in youth males (regional/Local: OR = 2.14; national: OR = 2.76). Overall, findings demonstrate that RAEs are pervasive in rugby and persist across sex, age, and competition level. However, the magnitude of the pooled estimates should be interpreted cautiously in light of the substantial between-study heterogeneity and the attenuation of the male effect following adjustment.
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.