ArticlePeerJ2025
Sex differences in association football: a scoping review.
Article in PeerJ, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite some reviews examining sex differences in football within specific themes, a comprehensive, integrated overview of sex differences in football is lacking. This scoping review aimed to: (1) synthesize existing evidence regarding sex differences in elite football players; (2) identify research gaps to provide direction for future studies. Methodology: The protocol adhered to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The searches were conducted on October 17, 2024, in Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science (Core Collection). The risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (RoBANS 2). A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize the main findings. Results: A total of 80 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review, encompassing 4,896 players (2,226 female, 2,670 male) and 234 matches (99 female, 135 male). Seventy-two studies (90%) did not report female participants' menstrual cycles or contraceptive medication use. Only six studies exclusively used "sex"-related terminology, with not a single study using "gender"-related terminology alone. Seventy-four studies (93%) presented various degrees of mixed usage of the terms "sex" and "gender". All included studies were categorized into eight themes according to their research focus: Anthropometrics, Muscle and Joint Movements, Physiological Response, Physical Performance, Technical Performance, Match Performance, Psychological and Behavioral Performance, and Nutrition/Recovery/Sleep. Conclusions: Perhaps due to a combination of innate biological factors and acquired dietary habits, female players, who typically have a higher body fat percentage and lower lean body mass, exhibit performance gaps compared to male players in terms of speed, strength, and endurance. These differences further affect their technical skills and match performance. However, while these absolute differences exist, they often diminish or even disappear when data are standardized against certain anthropometric or physiological metrics. This underscores the importance of developing individualized analytical methods and evaluation criteria tailored to female players. Future studies should carefully define sex-specific inclusion/exclusion criteria and select appropriate sex and gender terminology to minimize bias and enhance study quality.
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.