| Title |
The Use of Microtechnology to Quantify the Peak Match Demands of the Football Codes: A Systematic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-018-0965-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Whitehead, Kevin Till, Dan Weaving, Ben Jones |
| Abstract |
Quantifying the peak match demands within the football codes is useful for the appropriate prescription of external training load. Wearable microtechnology devices can be used to identify the peak match demands, although various methodologies exist at present. This systematic review aimed to identify the methodologies and microtechnology-derived variables used to determine the peak match demands, and to summarise current data on the peak match demands in the football codes. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed from earliest record to May 2018; keywords relating to microtechnology, peak match demands and football codes were used. Twenty-seven studies met the eligibility criteria. Six football codes were reported: rugby league (n = 7), rugby union (n = 5), rugby sevens (n = 4), soccer (n = 6), Australian Football (n = 2) and Gaelic Football (n = 3). Three methodologies were identified: moving averages, segmental and 'ball in play'. The moving averages is the most commonly used (63%) and superior method, identifying higher peak demands than other methods. The most commonly used variables were relative distance covered (63%) and external load in specified speed zones (57%). This systematic review has identified moving averages to be the most appropriate method for identifying the peak match demands in the football codes. Practitioners and researchers should choose the most relevant duration-specific period and microtechnology-derived variable for their specific needs. The code specific peak match demands revealed can be used for the prescription of conditioning drills and training intensity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 18 | 37% |
| Ireland | 3 | 6% |
| United States | 2 | 4% |
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 53% |
| Scientists | 22 | 45% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 257 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 9% |
| Researcher | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 52 | 20% |
| Unknown | 75 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 125 | 49% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 3% |
| Engineering | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 9% |
| Unknown | 84 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
#965,999
of 24,475,473 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#853
of 2,839 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,130
of 334,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,475,473 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,839 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 54.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.