| Literature DB >> 35834441 |
Felipe Dambroz1, Filipe Manuel Clemente2,3,4, Israel Teoldo1.
Abstract
This study aimed to carry out a systematic review to analyze, describe and discuss the effect of physical fatigue on the performance of soccer players. For this systematic review, searches were performed in Pubmed, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus electronic database until October 3, 2020, following the guidelines of PRISMA. A total of 12 articles met the inclusion criteria: i) healthy soccer players from any age group, competitive level or sex; ii) exposure to physical fatigue; iii) pre and post-physical fatigue conditions; iv) players' cognitive, technical, physical and tactical performances and v) no restrictions regarding the study design. The results section was organized in four main dimensions: cognitive, technical, physical and tactical. Studies on cognitive performance have shown divergent results, varying according to the cognitive task employed and the physical protocol used. Regarding technical performance, negative effects of physical fatigue were found on the technical fundamentals of the pass, dribble and kick. With regard to physical performance, studies have shown a reduction in sprint capacity and distances covered at high velocity. Finally, the only study that analyzed the tactical performance in the field showed an increase in the team's collective tactical behavior, but did not include analysis of the players' individual tactical actions. In summary, the results of the analyzed studies show that the effect of physical fatigue on cognitive performance is inconclusive and that technical and physical performance are negatively affected. Regarding tactical performance, there is a lack of information on the topic in the current literature.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35834441 PMCID: PMC9282585 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270099
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Definition of PICOS for inclusion and exclusion of articles.
| Parameter | Definition |
|---|---|
| Population | Healthy soccer players from any age group, competitive level or sex. |
| Intervention | Exposure to physical fatigue |
| Comparison | Pre- and post-physical fatigue conditions |
| Outcomes | Players’ cognitive, technical, physical and tactical performances |
| Study Design | No restrictions regarding the study design |
PICOS: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study design.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| Item | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Healthy soccer players from any age group, competitive level or sex | Injury; illness or other clinical condition and studies on other sports. |
| Intervention/ exposure | Exposure to physical fatigue | Exposure to ergogenic resources and nutritional interventions |
| Comparator | Pre- and post-physical fatigue conditions | Any test realized during physical protocol |
| Outcome | Players’ cognitive, technical, physical and tactical performances | Strength measurement, biomechenical aspect or metabolic response |
| Study design | No restrictions regarding the study design | - |
| Additional criteria | Articles published in international peer-reviewed journals | Review studies and works published in conference proceedings (abstracts) |
Methodological quality assessment scoring system.
| Question | Answer | Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | study purpose stated clearly? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q2 | relevant background literature reviewed? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q3 | design appropriate for the research question? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q4 | sample described in detail? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q5 | sample size justified? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q6 | informed consent obtained? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q7 | outcome measures reliable? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q8 | outcome measures valid? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q9 | method described in detail? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q10 | results reported in terms of statistical significance? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q11 | analysis methods appropriate? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q12 | importance for the practice reported? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q13 | any drop-outs reported? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q14 | conclusions appropriate given the study methods? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q15 | implications for practice given the results of the study? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Q16 | limitations of the study acknowledged and described by the authors? | Yes = 1; No = 0 | 0–1 |
| Total | 0–16 | ||
Adapted from Law and colleagues (1998).
Fig 1Flowchart of the review process.
Assessment of studies’ quality according to the pre-established methodological quality scoring system.
| Number | Author | Year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | Q14 | Q15 | Q16 | Percentual | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | McMorris e Graydon | 1996 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 50.00% | LOW |
| 2 | Lemmink e Visscher | 2005 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.25% | EXCELLENT |
| 3 | Rampinini e colleagues | 2008 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 87.50% | EXCELLENT |
| 4 | Fontana e colleagues | 2009 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 75.00% | GOOD |
| 5 | Stone e Oliver | 2009 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.25% | EXCELLENT |
| 6 | Small e colleagues | 2009 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 87.50% | EXCELLENT |
| 7 | Russell e colleagues | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 81.25% | EXCELLENT |
| 8 | Ferraz e colleagues | 2012 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 68.75% | GOOD |
| 9 | Casanova e colleagues | 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 87.50% | EXCELLENT |
| 10 | Frýbort e colleagues | 2016 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 68.75% | GOOD |
| 11 | Coutinho e colleagues | 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 87.50% | EXCELLENT |
| 12 | Barte e colleagues | 2020 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 68.75% | GOOD |
Summary of studies included in the systematic review.
| Authors | Objectives | Sample description | Instruments | Analysis/data sources | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McMorris and Graydon (1996) [ | To verify the effect of physical exercise on soccer players’ decision making | 20 soccer players (10 experienced and | ▪ Exercise on the intensity cycle ergometer | ▪ quality of decision making | |
| Lemmink and Visscher (2005) [ | To check the effect of intermittent exercise on response time | 16 recreational soccer players (20.9 ± 2.0 years) | ▪ Exercise on the cycle ergometer | ▪ HR | ↔ FC; ↔ [La] |
| Rampinini and collaborators (2008) [ | To verify if the fatigue accumulated during the game or generated by short sessions of high intensity intermittent activities affect the passing ability. | 16 soccer players (17.6 ± 0.5 years) | ▪ Soccer game lasting 90 minutes | ▪ RPE | |
| Fontana and collaborators (2009) [ | To verify the effect of exercise intensity on the decision making of experienced and inexperienced soccer players. | 32 soccer players (16 experienced—21.13 ± 1.62 years; 16 inexperienced 19.54 ± 1.14 years). | ▪ Exercise on the treadmill with different intensities: 40%, 60% and 80% VO2max | ▪ quality in decision making | |
| Stone e Oliver (2009) [ | To investigate the effect of fatigue developed during intermittent high intensity exercises on the technical basis of dribbling and kicking | 9 semi-professional soccer players (20.7 ± 1.4 years) | ▪ Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test (adapted) | ▪ HR | ↑ HR; |
| Small and collaborators (2009) [ | To investigate the effect | 9 semi-professional soccer players (21.3 ± 2.9 years) | ▪ SAF T90 physical test | ▪ sprint capacity | ↓ sprint Capacity |
| Russel and collaborators (2011) [ | To verify the effect of fatigue induced by a soccer match simulation protocol on technical performance | 15 young soccer players (18.1 ± 0.9 years) | ▪ Soccer game simulation test– 90 minutes (Nicholas et al., 2000) | ▪ [La] | ↑ [La]; |
| Ferraz and collaborators (2012) [ | To investigate the influence of physical fatigue on the maximum speed of the ball in soccer shooting. | 10 amateur soccer players (27.3 ± 5.25) | ▪ Specific circuit | ↑ HR; ↑ RPE; ↑ [La] | |
| Casanova and collaborators (2013) | To verify whether prolonged intermittent physical exercise has an effect on visual search, verbal reporting and the ability to anticipate of soccer players at different levels. | 16 soccer players | ▪ Intermittent exercise protocol specific to soccer on the treadmill (Drust et al. 2000). | ||
| Frýbort and collaborators (2016) | To analyze the relationship between the variation of the intensity of the exercise and the time of visual-motor response and the accuracy of the motor response in an offensive game situation in soccer. | 42 semi-professional soccer players (18.0 ± 0.9 years) | ▪ Treadmill protocol Exercise intensity: | ↔ correct motor response | |
| Coutinho and collaborators (2018) | To verify the effect of mental and muscular fatigue on the physical performance and on the tactical behavior of soccer players | 10 amateur soccer players (13.7 ± 0.5 years) | ▪ RCOD Protocol (Beckett, Schneiker, Wallman, Dawson and Guelfi, 2009) | ▪ RPE | ↑ RPE |
| Barte and collaborators (2020) | To verify the effect of fatigue on decision making in soccer | 30 experienced soccer players (20.3 ± 3.3 years) | ▪ High intensity intermittent running exercise protocol (Russell, et al. 2011). | ▪ HR | ↑ HR; ↑ RPE |
↓ drop, ↑ increase (both with statistical significance); ↔ maintenance (without statistical significance); HR—heart rate; [la]—lactate concentration; RPE–rate of perception of effort; LSPT—Loughborough Soccer Passing Test.