ArticlePloS one2024
External load transition practices from pre-season to in-season. A case study in elite female professional soccer players.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shaping Training Load, Technical-Tactical Behaviour, and Well-Being in Football: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aim was to compare the external load during varying microcycles (M1-M4 during pre-season and M5 during the in-season) in elite female Portuguese soccer players and to describe external load variations between differing Ms. Fourteen first-team players participated in the study (age 23.29 ± 3.19 years, weight 59.14 ± 6.87 kg, height 1.66 ± 0.08 m). Load measures included total distance, high-speed running (HSR) distance (≥15 km/h), number of accelerations and decelerations [acceleration 1 (ACC1), >1-2 m/s; acceleration 2 (ACC2), >2-3 m/s; acceleration 3 (ACC3), >3-4 m/s; acceleration 4 (ACC4), >4 m/s] and decelerations [deceleration 1 (DEC1), <1-2 m/s; deceleration 2 (DEC2), <2-3 m/s; deceleration 3 (DEC3), <3-4 m/s; deceleration 4 (DEC4), <4 m/s]. M1 showed higher values of total distance, ACC1, ACC2, ACC3, DEC2, DEC3 and DEC4 than M2 (p = <0.001-0.04), although HSR was higher in M2 (p < 0.001). M2 showed lower values of HSR, ACC1, DEC1, DEC2, DEC3 than M3 (p = 0.001-0.04). M3 reported higher values of total distance, ACC1, ACC2, DEC1, DEC2 than M4 (p = <0.001-0.03), while M4 only found higher values of ACC4 and DEC4 than M5 (both, p = 0.01). The highest values occurred in M3 for the majority of external load metrics (except ACC3, ACC4, and DEC4 which were higher in M4). However, during the transition from M4 to M5, only ACC4 and DEC4 decreased with all other measures maintained, thus supporting the notion to maintain similar loading patterns during official competition.
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.