Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29371223›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of sports medicine2019

Broad-spectrum physical fitness benefits of recreational football: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zoran Milanović, Saša Pantelić, Nedim Čović, Goran Sporiš, Magni Mohr, Peter Krustrup

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of sports medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Effects of Small-Sided Recreational Volleyball on Health Markers and Physical Fitness in Middle-Aged Men.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 10 countries.

Zoran MilanovićFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Saša PantelićFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Nis, Nis, Serbia.
Nedim ČovićFaculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Goran SporišFaculty of Kinesiology, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Magni MohrCenter of Health and Performance, Department of Food and Nutrition and Sport Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter KrustrupDepartment of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, SDU Sport and Health Sciences Cluster (SHSC), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
University of Nis · RSFood & Nutrition · NLUniversity of Sarajevo · BAUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKUniversity of Zagreb · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA previous meta-analysis showed that maximal oxygen uptake increased by 3.51 mL/kg/min (95% CI 3.07 to 4.15) during a recreational football programme of 3-6 months in comparison with continuous moderate-intensity running, strength training or a passive control group. In addition, narrative reviews have demonstrated beneficial effects of recreational football on physical fitness and health status.

objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the magnitude of effects of recreational football on blood pressure, body composition, lipid profile and muscular fitness with reference to age, gender and health status.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Google Scholar were searched prior to 1 February 2017. In addition, Google Scholar alerts were set up in January 2012 to identify potential papers with the following key terms: recreational football, recreational soccer, street football and street soccer. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised and matched controlled trials with participants allocated to a recreational football group or any other type of exercises or passive control group were included. Training programmes had to last at least 2 weeks to meet the inclusion criteria. The primary outcome measures were blood pressure, resting heart rate, body composition, muscular fitness, and blood lipids and glucose tolerance. A total of 31 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included.

resultsThe effect of recreational football on systolic blood pressure (SBP) versus no-exercise controls was

conclusionThe present meta-analysis demonstrated multiple broad-spectrum benefits of recreational football on health-related physical fitness compared with no-exercise controls, including improvements in blood pressure, resting heart rate, fat mass, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CMJ performance. Additionally, recreational football is efficient and effective as Zumba and continuous running exercise regimens with highlighted social, motivational and competitive components.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood PressureBody Mass IndexFemaleHeart RateHumansLipidsMaleMuscle, SkeletalPhysical FitnessPlyometric ExerciseResistance TrainingRunningSoccerBlood GlucoseLipidsfootballhealth promotionphysical fitness

Identifiers

PMID29371223
PMCPMC6662951
OpenAlexW2781558537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.