Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41262845›Full record

ArticleSouth African journal of sports medicine2025

Does the backlift also matter in female cricket? A biomechanical investigation among local and international female cricket batters.

A Patel, H Noorbhai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in South African journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

A PatelBEAHT Research Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3598-9897
H NoorbhaiBEAHT Research Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9464-6854

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite extensive research on batting biomechanics among male cricketers, limited studies focus on female cricket players. Objectives: This study examines the biomechanical and performance implications of the lateral batting backlift technique (LBBT) and straight batting backlift technique (SBBT) among female cricketers. Methods: This study aims to bridge this gap by assessing the backlift, its influence on shot execution and its relationship with performance metrics among local (n=18; South African National Women's Cricket Team, also known as the Protea (P) Women's Cricket team (n=9) and non-Protea players (NP) n=9), as well as international (n=34) female players, using high-speed video analysis and StanceBeam bat sensors. Statistical analyses, including Spearman's Rho correlations and Mann-Whitney U tests, were applied to evaluate key performance metrics such as bat speed, impact speed, and wagon wheel shot distribution. Results: Findings show that local (67%) and international (62%) players used the LBBT, which was associated with greater performance metrics, e.g., strong positive correlations were found between bat speed and impact speed (r=0.85, p<0.001). A significant difference in wagon wheel shot distribution was observed between P and NP players (p=0.039). Conclusion: Findings suggest that the LBBT offers biomechanical advantages and may be a key contributing factor in optimising female batting performance. Future longitudinal research studies should focus on three-dimensional (3D) motion capture (as well as markerless motion capture) on the LBBT, integrating real-time analytics and expanding sample sizes to include diverse player populations.

Indexed as

biomechanicscricket battingperformancewomen’s cricket

Identifiers

PMID41262845
PMCPMC12626433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.