SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2024
A comparison of perceptual-cognitive skills in expert and non-expert sports officials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Visual search behavior and decision-making in expert and less-experienced football referees across different foul situations: an eye-tracking study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Research on the impact of official type and officiating expertise on visual tracking performance: based on the multiple identity tracking task.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Research on the visual search behavior and decision-making ability of basketball referees.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study is to systematically compare and assess the differences in perceptual-cognitive skills between expert and non-expert sports officials, and further explore the potential differences caused by different types of sports officials, in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the perceptual-cognitive skills of sports officials. Methods: Relevant literature published before 31 December 2022 was searched in four English databases. Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 12.0 software were used for meta-analysis and bias test. Results: Expert sports officials are significantly more accurate in their decision-making than non-expert sports officials, and exhibit a large amount of effect size (SMD = 1.09; 95%CI: 0.52, 1.66; Discussion: It can be seen that there are differences in the Perceptual-cognitive skills of expert and non-expert sports officials. Decision-making accuracy can serve as an important indicator for distinguishing the perceptual-cognitive skills of expert and non-expert sports officials. Number of fixations can serve as important indicators to differentiate the perceptual-cognitive skills of monitors. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=418594, identifier: CRD42023418594.
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.