Suppr超能文献

网球发球的生物物理特征:系统范围综述及证据差距图。

Biophysical characterization of the tennis serve: A systematic scoping review with evidence gap map.

机构信息

Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI(2)D) and Porto Biomechanics Laboratory (LABIOMEP), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/AndreVilela1996.

Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI(2)D) and Porto Biomechanics Laboratory (LABIOMEP), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Portugal.

出版信息

J Sci Med Sport. 2024 Feb;27(2):125-140. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.10.018. Epub 2023 Nov 5.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the available evidence on the biophysics of the tennis serve, mapping the populations, interventions, contexts and other relevant information to highlight what is already known and to identify gaps in the literature.

DESIGN

Systematic scoping review with evidence gap map.

METHODS

The protocol was designed according to PRISMA 2020, Prisma-ScR guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. The searches were conducted on July 20, 2022 and updated on April 1, 2023, in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (core collection). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochranes method for nonrandomized studies (RoBANS) and a narrative synthesis of the main findings was performed and supplemented with an evidence gap map.

RESULTS

Most trials were found on serve kinematics and kinetics (95 %), analyzing only flat serves (84 and 72 %, respectively). Few trials focused on physiology (20 %; e.g. biomarkers), under-19, left or both-handed, female and intermediate beginner or starter players (29, 17, 8 and 7 %, respectively). We found a preponderance of low and unclear risk of bias (63 and 31 %, respectively) and only 7 % high, particularly, on the assessment of confounding variables.

CONCLUSIONS

The current scoping review reveals a few trials on physiological rather than biomechanical variables, as well as the absence of the kick and slice serve, foot-back and foot-up serve, and left-handed, female, and young player analyses. We did not find systematic mistakes or limitations in the design, conduct, or analysis that would distort the results, since only 7 % presented a high risk of bias.

摘要

目的

评估网球发球的生物物理学相关现有证据,绘制人群、干预措施、背景等相关信息图谱,以突出已知内容并确定文献中的空白点。

设计

系统范围综述和证据空白图谱。

方法

根据 PRISMA 2020、Prisma-ScR 指南和 Cochrane 手册设计方案。2022 年 7 月 20 日进行检索,并于 2023 年 4 月 1 日更新,检索数据库包括 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science(核心合集)。使用 Cochrane 非随机研究偏倚评估工具(RoBANS)评估偏倚风险,并进行主要发现的叙述性综合分析,并辅以证据空白图谱。

结果

大多数试验都集中在发球运动学和动力学上(95%),仅分析平击发球(分别为 84%和 72%)。很少有试验关注生理学(20%;例如生物标志物)、19 岁以下、左撇子或双手发球者、女性和中级初学者或起步选手(分别为 29%、17%、8%和 7%)。我们发现低风险和不确定风险的偏倚比例较高(分别为 63%和 31%),而高风险偏倚的比例仅为 7%,尤其是在混杂变量的评估方面。

结论

本次范围综述显示,关于生理而非生物力学变量的试验较少,也缺乏上旋发球、侧旋发球、脚后发球、脚前发球以及左撇子、女性和年轻选手的分析。我们没有发现设计、实施或分析中存在系统性错误或限制,这些错误或限制会扭曲结果,因为只有 7%的试验存在高偏倚风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验