Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32497130›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Testing methods and physical qualities of male age grade rugby union players: A systematic review.

Cameron Owen, Kevin Till, Jonathon Weakley, Ben Jones

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 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. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Cameron OwenLeeds Beckett University, Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6518-1389
Kevin TillLeeds Beckett University, Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9686-0536
Jonathon WeakleyLeeds Beckett University, Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7892-4885
Ben JonesLeeds Beckett University, Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Leeds Beckett University · GBUniversity of Cape Town · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRugby union match demands are complex, requiring the development of multiple physical qualities concurrently. Quantifying the physical qualities of age grade rugby union players is vital for practitioners to support athlete preparation and long-term development.

aimThis systematic review aimed to identify the methods used to quantify the physical qualities of male age grade (≤ Under-20) rugby union players, present the normative values for physical qualities, and compare physical qualities between age grades and positions.

methodsElectronic databases were systematically reviewed from the earliest record to November 2019 using key words relating to sex, age, sport and physical testing.

resultsForty-two studies evaluated the physical qualities of age grade rugby union players. Seventy-five tests were used to quantify body composition, muscular strength, muscular power, linear speed, change of direction ability, aerobic capacity and anaerobic endurance. Thirty-one studies met the eligibility criteria to present the physical qualities. Physical qualities differentiate between age groups below Under-16, while differences in older age groups (Under-16 to Under-20) are not clear. Positional differences are present with forwards possessing greater height, body mass, body fat percentage and strength while backs are faster and have greater aerobic capacities.

conclusionsA wide variety of tests are used to assess physical qualities limiting between study comparisons. Although differences in older age grades are unclear, older age groups (Under-19-20) generally performed better in physical tests. Positional differences are associated with match demands where forwards are exposed to less running but a greater number of collisions. Practitioners can use the results from this review to evaluate the physical qualities of age grade rugby union players to enhance training prescription, goal setting and player development. Future research should consider the use of national standardised testing batteries due to the inconsistency in testing methods and small samples limiting the reporting of positional differences.

Indexed as

AthletesAdolescentAthletic PerformanceBody CompositionBody SizeChildExercise TestFootballHumansMaleMuscle StrengthPhysical EndurancePhysical FitnessRunningYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32497130
PMCPMC7272054
OpenAlexW3033737359

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.