ReviewBiology of sport2025
Can different small-sided game formats impact physiological, physical, technical, and tactical demands in basketball players? A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Biology of sport, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of different game formats (1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 4 v 4, 4 v 3, 3 v 3+1, and 5 v 5) on basketball players' physiological, physical, technical, and tactical responses during SSGs. The data sources utilized were PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Eligibility included basketball players of any age or sex, competing in tier 2 or higher, exposed to at least two different formats. Studies had to report on physiological responses, physical demands, technical performance, and tactical behaviors. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS scale. The search identified 4,967 titles, with 16 articles eligible for the review and meta-analysis. Results indicated that extreme SSGs (e.g., 1 v 1, 2 v 2) elicited significantly higher cardiovascular demands, as reflected by greater mean and peak heart rates, compared to larger SSGs (e.g., 3 v 3, 4 v 4), with a moderate effect size favoring extreme formats (Hedge's g = -0.47, p = 0.02). In terms of perceived exertion (RPE), no significant differences were found between extreme and larger SSGs, suggesting similar subjective effort across formats. For technical performance, extreme SSGs (e.g., 1 v 1, 2 v 2) exhibited a higher frequency of actions, such as passes and shots, compared to larger formats, with a moderate effect size favoring smaller formats (Hedge's g = -0.78, p < 0.01). No significant publication bias was found, though high heterogeneity was noted in RPE comparisons. This meta-analysis showed that extreme SSG formats elicit higher cardiovascular demands and more frequent technical actions than larger formats, highlighting their potential for targeting specific physical and technical demands in basketball training.
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.