Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33368031›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2021

The Validity and Reliability of Wearable Microtechnology for Intermittent Team Sports: A Systematic Review.

Zachary L Crang, Grant Duthie, Michael H Cole, Jonathon Weakley, Adam Hewitt, Rich D Johnston

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.7field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Zachary L CrangSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QL, 4014, Australia. Zachary.crang@myacu.edu.au.
Grant DuthieSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, Australia.
Michael H ColeSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QL, 4014, Australia.
Jonathon WeakleySchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QL, 4014, Australia.
Adam HewittSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QL, 4014, Australia.
Rich D JohnstonSchool of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QL, 4014, Australia.
Australian Catholic University · AULeeds Beckett University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTechnology has long been used to track player movements in team sports, with initial tracking via manual coding of video footage. Since then, wearable microtechnology in the form of global and local positioning systems has provided a less labour-intensive way of monitoring movements. As such, there has been a proliferation in research pertaining to these devices.

objectiveA systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of wearable microtechnology to quantify movement and specific actions common to intermittent team sports.

methodsA systematic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus was performed; studies included must have been (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of wearable microtechnology to quantify movements or specific actions common to intermittent team sports.

resultsA total of 384 studies were retrieved and 187 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 197 studies were screened and the full texts of 88 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 62 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 10 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 72 studies were included in this review.

conclusionThere are many studies investigating the validity and reliability of wearable microtechnology to track movement and detect sport-specific actions. It is evident that for the majority of metrics, validity and reliability are multi-factorial, in that it is dependent upon a wide variety of factors including wearable technology brand and model, sampling rate, type of movement performed (e.g., straight line, change of direction) and intensity of movement (e.g., walk, sprint). Practitioners should be mindful of the accuracy and repeatability of the devices they are using when making decisions on player training loads.

Indexed as

SportsWearable Electronic DevicesHumansMicrotechnologyReproducibility of ResultsTeam Sports

Identifiers

PMID33368031
OpenAlexW3114015258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.