ArticleScientific reports2021
Influence of the artificial turf certification on physical performance and muscle damage in football players (QUALTURF PROJECT).
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This study aimed to analyse the influence of the FIFA Quality PRO certification of artificial turf pitches on the physical, physiological performance and muscle damage in soccer players. Fifteen healthy male players (21.2 ± 1.4 years; 178.2 ± 4.3 cm; 79.1 ± 8.3 kg) from a university football team were selected to participate in the research. Mechanical properties related to surface-player interaction were assessed on the two surfaces selected for this study. A randomized design was used and the players performed the Ball-sport Endurance and Sprint Test (BEAST90) on the different artificial turf fields. Average time of the 20 m sprints was longer on the FIFA Quality Pro surface than on the non-certified pitch (+ 0.13 s; p < 0.05; CI 95% - 0.01 to 0.27; ES: 0.305). The players' perceived effort was higher in the first (+ 2.64; p < 0.05; CI 95% 0.92 to 4.35; ES: 1.421) and the second half (+ 1.35; p < 0.05; CI 95% - 0.02 to 2.72; ES: 0.637) of the test on the FIFA Quality Pro field. Comparative analysis between surfaces showed no significant differences in the time spent in each of the heart rate zones and higher concentrations of CK (+ 196.58; p > 0.05; CI 95% 66.54 to 326.61; ES: 1.645) were evidenced in the non-certified pitch surface. In response to a simulated match protocol, markers of post-exercise muscle damage may be reduced on accredited artificial turf fields. These insights can provide the opportunity to maximize the efficiency of training sessions and reduce the risk of injury during the season.
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.