Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42337696›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026

Notational analysis of men's curling at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics: comparing China with medal-winning teams.

Pengfei Zhang, Wanning Huang, Qiang Li, Xiuyun Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Pengfei Zhang *Faculty of Education, Languages, Psychology and Music, SEGi University, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-8132-3700
Wanning HuangFaculty of Humanities & Social Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Qiang Li *School of Foreign Languages, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, China. qiang.li@cpu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6196-3519
Xiuyun WuDepartment of Physical Education, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao, China. 446775819@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigates the technical and tactical performance of the Chinese men's curling team in comparison with medal-winning teams during the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, based on notational analysis of 34 matches. Guided by three research questions, the frequency and types of delivery and takeout techniques were first analysed, revealing that the Chinese team relied heavily on offensive shots such as draw and hit-and-rolls. In contrast, medal-winning teams adopted more balanced strategies, showing greater variability across both offensive and defensive shot types. Second, inter-team comparisons using Spearman correlation and chi-square tests showed that medalists demonstrated significantly higher tactical diversity and superior success rates in key shot types. Third, binary logistic regression was employed to evaluate the predictive value of specific tactical indicators. Promotion takeout success was found to be a significant positive predictor of match outcome (B = 1.150, p = 0.005), with a model classification accuracy of 85.7% and an AUC of 0.91. Conversely, sweeping success was negatively associated with winning (B = -0.200, p = 0.004), and its corresponding model achieved 76.2% accuracy and an AUC of 0.88. These findings suggest that sweeping may function as a compensatory tactic in high-pressure contexts. By combining descriptive, comparative, and predictive approaches, this study establishes a comprehensive framework for assessing elite curling performance and offers practical insights for coaching and strategic decision-making.

Indexed as

curlingkey tactical indicatorsnotational analysisstatistical modellingtechnical-tactical execution

Identifiers

PMID42337696
PMCPMC13551906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.