ArticlePloS one2020
Key performance indicators at FIFA Women's World Cup in different playing surfaces.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Analysis of FIFA 2023 Women's World Cup match performance according to match outcome and phase of the tournament.Biology of sport · 2025Article
- Future horizons in the analysis of technical-tactical performance in women's football: a mixed methods approach to the analysis of in-depth interviews with professional coaches and players.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the key performance indicators of female professional soccer players during the 2011 and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, played on different surfaces (natural and artificial turf respectively). A total of 438 women from 24 national teams who participated at Canada 2015 (artificial turf) and 283 players from 16 national teams who played in Germany 2011 (natural grass) were selected for this study. The collected data were provided by OPTA Sports. Twenty-nine key performance indicators were included for analysis. The variables were calculated for the total sample and independently by positions (defense, midfielders and forwards) for matches on natural grass (2011) and artificial turf (2015). A Mann-Whitney U test was used out to identify differences between the sport surfaces. Moreover, a discriminant analysis was performed with the forced entry method to find the variables that better differentiated between the FIFA Women's World Cup 2011 (natural grass) and FIFA Women's World Cup 2015 (artificial turf). Key performance aspects were very similar between the two tournaments, but on natural grass, we observed a significantly higher number of total passes, successful dribbles, total tackles, successful tackles and interceptions. However, on artificial turf there were significantly higher percentages of success in total passes, and a higher number of fouls. This is an important factor for the choice of an elite competition surface because technical actions are crucial to the quality of the game and can influence the future behavior of spectators and fans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.