Bagus Winata, Joana Brochhagen, Tommy Apriantono, Matthias Wilhelm Hoppe
{"title":"羽毛球比赛分类数据的系统回顾。","authors":"Bagus Winata, Joana Brochhagen, Tommy Apriantono, Matthias Wilhelm Hoppe","doi":"10.3389/fspor.2025.1466778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aimed to investigate differences in match-play data according to the five playing categories in badminton.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12716,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","volume":"7 ","pages":"1466778"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11897274/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Match-play data according to playing categories in badminton: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Bagus Winata, Joana Brochhagen, Tommy Apriantono, Matthias Wilhelm Hoppe\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fspor.2025.1466778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review aimed to investigate differences in match-play data according to the five playing categories in badminton.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"1466778\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11897274/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1466778\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sports and Active Living","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1466778","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本系统综述旨在探讨羽毛球运动中五种比赛类型的比赛数据差异。材料和方法:系统评价按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行。在ScienceDirect、PubMed、b谷歌Scholar、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane Library数据库上进行了搜索。研究评估技术战术动作,活动概况,或外部和内部负荷作为比赛赛结果的措施,根据羽毛球运动的五个类别被认为是合格的。采用改良版AMSTAR-2检查表进行质量评估,比较结果测量,计算效应量(ES)和相关95%置信区间。结果:在12967项研究中,34项符合入选标准。其中,优良的有29个,优良的有5个。与女子单打类别相比,一些个体活动谱的ES显示出较大的差异(ES≤4.52),有利于男子。与其他双打项目相比,女子双打项目与其他双打项目相比,某些个体活动谱的ES表现出较大差异(ES≤-2.72)。活动概况的总体ESs很大(ES = -0.76至-0.90),无论男女,双打者都比单打者更受青睐。讨论:羽毛球的五种比赛类型在比赛赛数据上有很大的差异,每一种类型对运动员都有特定的要求。因此,每个类别都需要特定的训练和测试程序,这是科学家和教练应该考虑的。
Match-play data according to playing categories in badminton: a systematic review.
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.