ArticleBiology of sport2026
Do important points change the game? Technical-tactical performance in high-level men's padel.
Article in Biology of sport, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In padel, match outcomes often hinge on high-pressure situations that arise during critical scoring moments. However, little is known about how technical-tactical performance varies between important and regular points. This study aimed to test whether important points (break, golden, tiebreak) differ from regular points (all others) in last-shot effectiveness, server success, and set-winner success in high-level men's padel, and to examine shot-family distributions by point importance. Through systematic observation, data were collected from 38 matches (4,521 points). Outcomes were winner (W), forced error (FE), unforced error (UE), serving pair wins the point (SrvWin), and point won by the set-winning pair (SetWinPt). Binomial GLMMs (logit; random intercept for match) were fitted; binomial GLMs were used when the random-effect variance was at the boundary. We contrasted break, golden, and tiebreak points with regular and reported odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) and model-adjusted probabilities. Shot-family distributions for the last shot (W/FE/UE) were compared with χ
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.