Li Tingyu, Wang Shuang, Martinho Diogo V, Silva Rui Miguel, Xu Qi, Gouveia Élvio R, Clemente Filipe Manuel
Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, 80-336 Gdañsk, Poland.
Changsha Xiangjun Peicui Expermental Middle School, Changsha 410002, China.
Biol Sport. 2025 Mar 24;42(3):283-302. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2025.147012. eCollection 2025 Jul.
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of different game formats (1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 4 v 4, 4 v 3, 3 v 3+1, and 5 v 5) on basketball players' physiological, physical, technical, and tactical responses during SSGs. The data sources utilized were PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Eligibility included basketball players of any age or sex, competing in tier 2 or higher, exposed to at least two different formats. Studies had to report on physiological responses, physical demands, technical performance, and tactical behaviors. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS scale. The search identified 4,967 titles, with 16 articles eligible for the review and meta-analysis. Results indicated that extreme SSGs (e.g., 1 v 1, 2 v 2) elicited significantly higher cardiovascular demands, as reflected by greater mean and peak heart rates, compared to larger SSGs (e.g., 3 v 3, 4 v 4), with a moderate effect size favoring extreme formats (Hedge's g = -0.47, p = 0.02). In terms of perceived exertion (RPE), no significant differences were found between extreme and larger SSGs, suggesting similar subjective effort across formats. For technical performance, extreme SSGs (e.g., 1 v 1, 2 v 2) exhibited a higher frequency of actions, such as passes and shots, compared to larger formats, with a moderate effect size favoring smaller formats (Hedge's g = -0.78, p < 0.01). No significant publication bias was found, though high heterogeneity was noted in RPE comparisons. This meta-analysis showed that extreme SSG formats elicit higher cardiovascular demands and more frequent technical actions than larger formats, highlighting their potential for targeting specific physical and technical demands in basketball training.
这项系统评价及荟萃分析旨在比较不同比赛形式（1对1、2对2、3对3、4对4、4对3、3对3加1和5对5）对篮球运动员在小型比赛期间的生理、身体、技术和战术反应的影响。所使用的数据来源包括PubMed、Scopus、SPORTDiscus和科学网。纳入标准包括任何年龄或性别的篮球运动员，参加二级或更高级别的比赛，且接触过至少两种不同的比赛形式。研究必须报告生理反应、身体需求、技术表现和战术行为。使用MINORS量表评估方法学质量。检索共识别出4967个标题，其中16篇文章符合综述和荟萃分析的条件。结果表明，与较大规模的小型比赛（如3对3、4对4）相比，极端小型比赛（如1对1、2对2）引发的心血管需求显著更高，平均心率和峰值心率更高，效应量中等，有利于极端比赛形式（Hedge's g = -0.47，p = 0.02）。在主观用力感觉（RPE）方面，极端比赛形式和较大规模比赛形式之间未发现显著差异，表明不同比赛形式的主观努力程度相似。在技术表现方面，与较大规模比赛形式相比，极端小型比赛（如1对1、2对2）的传球和投篮等动作频率更高，效应量中等，有利于较小比赛形式（Hedge's g = -0.78，p < 0.01）。未发现显著的发表偏倚，尽管在RPE比较中观察到高度异质性。这项荟萃分析表明，极端小型比赛形式比大型比赛形式引发更高的心血管需求和更频繁的技术动作，突出了它们在篮球训练中针对特定身体和技术需求的潜力。
