Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25354188›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Influence of the mechanical properties of third-generation artificial turf systems on soccer players' physiological and physical performance and their perceptions.

Javier Sánchez-Sánchez, Jorge García-Unanue, Pedro Jiménez-Reyes, Ana Gallardo, Pablo Burillo, José Luis Felipe, Leonor Gallardo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Association between Fitness Level and Physical Match Demands of Professional Female Football Referees.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Novel Methodology for Football Rebound Test Method.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Javier Sánchez-SánchezSchool of Sport Sciences, UCAM, Universidad Católica San Antonio, Murcia, Spain; IGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Jorge García-UnanueIGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Pedro Jiménez-ReyesSchool of Sport Sciences, UCAM, Universidad Católica San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.
Ana GallardoSchool of Sport Sciences, UCAM, Universidad Católica San Antonio, Murcia, Spain.
Pablo BurilloIGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; Sport Sciences Institute, Camilo José Cela University, Villafranca del Castillo, Madrid, Spain.
José Luis FelipeIGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain; School of Sport Sciences, European University, Villaviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain.
Leonor GallardoIGOID Research Group, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this research was to evaluate the influence of the mechanical properties of artificial turf systems on soccer players' performance. A battery of perceptive physiological and physical tests were developed on four different structural systems of artificial turf (System 1: Compacted gravel sub-base without elastic layer; System 2: Compacted gravel sub-base with elastic layer; System 3: Asphalt sub-base without elastic layer; System 4: Asphalt sub-base with elastic layer). The sample was composed of 18 soccer players (22.44±1.72 years) who typically train and compete on artificial turf. The artificial turf system with less rotational traction (S3) showed higher total time in the Repeated Sprint Ability test in comparison to the systems with intermediate values (49.46±1.75 s vs 47.55±1.82 s (S1) and 47.85±1.59 s (S2); p<0.001). The performance in jumping tests (countermovement jump and squat jump) and ball kicking to goal decreased after the RSA test in all surfaces assessed (p<0.05), since the artificial turf system did not affect performance deterioration (p>0.05). The physiological load was similar in all four artificial turf systems. However, players felt more comfortable on the harder and more rigid system (S4; visual analogue scale = 70.83±14.28) than on the softer artificial turf system (S2; visual analogue scale = 54.24±19.63). The lineal regression analysis revealed a significant influence of the mechanical properties of the surface of 16.5%, 15.8% and 7.1% on the mean time of the sprint, the best sprint time and the maximum mean speed in the RSA test respectively. Results suggest a mechanical heterogeneity between the systems of artificial turf which generate differences in the physical performance and in the soccer players' perceptions.

Indexed as

SoccerSports EquipmentStress, MechanicalAthletic PerformanceElasticityFacility Design and ConstructionHumansMaleMineralsRubberYoung AdultMineralsRubber

Identifiers

PMID25354188
PMCPMC4213020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.