SynthesisPloS one2025
Acute fatigue in indoor court-based team sports: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fatigue in team sports has been widely researched, with a number of systematic reviews summarising the acute (i.e., within 48-hours) response in outdoor sports. However, the fatigue response to indoor court-based sports is likely to differ to outdoor sports due to smaller playing fields, harder surfaces, and greater match frequencies, thus should be considered separately to outdoor sports. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a systematic review on acute fatigue in indoor court-based team-sport, identify methods and markers used to measure acute fatigue, and describe acute fatigue responses. A systematic search of the electronic databases (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, MEDLINE and CINHAL) was conducted from earliest record to June 2023. Included studies investigated either a physical, technical, perceptual, or physiological response taken before and after training, match, or tournament play. One-hundred and eight studies were included, measuring 142 markers of fatigue. Large variability in methods, fatigue markers and timeline of measurements were present. Cortisol (n = 43), creatine kinase (n = 28), countermovement jump (n = 26) and testosterone (n = 23) were the most frequently examined fatigue markers. Creatine kinase displayed the most consistent trend, increasing 10-204% at 24-hours across sports. There is large variability across studies in the methods and markers used to determine acute fatigue responses in indoor court-based team sports. Future researchers should focus on markers that display high reliability and transfer to practice. The robustness of studies may be increased by ensuring appropriate methods and timescale of fatigue marker measurement are used. Further research is required to determine which combination of markers best describes a fatigue response.
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.