ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2025
The effect of continuous vs. intermittent protocols during small-sided games in soccer on physiological, physical, technical and tactical performance.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
Small-sided games (SSG) are a common part of the soccer practice and coaching regularly utilize continuous (CSSG) or intermittent games (ISSG). Interestingly, players enjoy the CSSG format to a greater extent, whilst experiencing greater individual perceived exertion (RPE) and higher blood lactate concentration. CSSG reported a decrease in maximal and average heart rate and lower time spent in high heart rate zones (>90% maximum heart rate). Players experienced lower physical strain during CSSG. Variables associated with higher external load such as total distance, total number of sprints, and distances in high-intensity speed thresholds (>14.4 km/h) as well as player load and acceleration variables decreased during CSSG. Little research opposes this idea reporting increased physical demands with the identical variables. The technical performances of players in the two different regimes showed also significant differences. The CSSG reported lower technical engagement (decreased ball involvement, number of dribbling and interceptions). However, yet displaying greater technical efficiency (lower percentage of lost balls, greater percentage successful passes). There is no scientific evidence with regards to tactical differences between the CSSG and ISSG. Depending on the time in the season and the level of players, coaches should favor ISSG promoting greater physical and technical development.
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.