Table 1 Multidimensional studies included in the systematic review
Author(s) (Year) | Sport performance level | Sex subgroup (sample size) | Reported age Mean age ± SD or range (years) | Reported study design | Statistical approach | Dimensions | Reported measurements | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Two-dimensional | ||||||||
Abdullahi et al. (2017) [37] | Badminton competitive elite | Female (9) Male (20) Total (29) | NR NR 21.24 ± 6.41 | Prospective, descriptive, cross-sectional | Independent t-testa (national vs. provincial) | Anthropometric Physiological | Weight, height, skinfolds, chest width, arm span SR, VJ, long jump, sit-ups, push-ups, sprint speed | National players have better motor fitness parameters. No differences were found for anthropometrics and flexibility |
Baiget et al. (2014) [29] | Tennis Successful elite | Male Total (38) | 18.2 ± 1.3 | NR | Multiple regression model/analysis (competitive performance) | Physiological Technical | HR, VO2max, ventilatory thresholds Technical effectiveness | Low to moderate correlations were found between performance (final stage), physiological (VT1, VT2) and technical effectiveness, and competitive performance (r = 0.35–0.61; p = 0.038–0.000). Technical effectiveness explained 37% of variability in competitive performance (r = 0.61; p = 0.001). Using technical effectiveness combined with endurance measures or predictability increased explaining approximately 55% (p < 0.05) of the variance in competitive performance |
Baiget et al. (2016) [30] | Tennis Successful elite | Male International (8) National (30) Total (38) | 17.9 ± 1.0 18.3 ± 1.40 NR | Descriptive, correlational | T-test/Welch’s test Stepwise discriminant analysis (national vs. international) | Physiological Technical | HR, VO2max, ventilatory thresholds Technical effectiveness | Aerobic fitness and technical efficiency can discriminate between national and international tennis players. In the discriminant analysis, only technical efficiency variables are included and 86% of the players were classified correctly |
Brechbuhl et al. (2018) [31] | Tennis Successful elite | Female Junior (14) Senior (13) Total (27) | 14.7 ± 1.0 18.9 ± 3.2 16.7 ± 3.1 | NR | One-way ANOVAa (junior vs. professional) Pearson rank order correlation analysis | Physiological Technical | Time to exhaustion, (maximum) oxygen uptake, HR, blood lactate, ventilatory thresholds Technical performance (ball accuracy- and velocity) | Compared with juniors, professionals possess higher exercise capacity, maximal, and submaximal aerobic attributes along with faster backhand stroke velocities during an incremental tennis-specific field test |
Catalán-Eslava et al. (2018) [40] | Squash Competitive elite | Male Total (80) | 33.46 ± 8.24 | NR | Mann–Whitney U test/Kruskal–Wallisa (national vs. national vs. regional vs. provincial) | Technical/Tactical | Squash Performance Evaluation Tool (HERS); control, decision, and execution | National players show higher technical and tactical skill levels compared to regional and provincial players |
Chen et al. (2022) [34] | Table tennis Successful elite | Male Advanced (10) Intermediate (10) Total (20) | 20.6 ± 1.2 20.6 ± 1.5 | NR | Independent t-testa (advanced [division I] vs. intermediate [division II]) | Physiological Technical | Kinematic joint angles, joint torques, EMG Racket speed | Advanced players can produce higher upper- and lower-limb joint angular velocities for faster racket speeds. Furthermore, they demonstrated longer firing duration and higher muscle force generation in some muscles Advanced players were capable to produce higher shoulder, hip, and knee torques at faster speeds, but not at lower speeds |
Filipcic et al. (2015) [35] | Tennis Competitive elite | Female (NR b) Male (NRb) | 12–17 12–17 | NR | MANOVA (tennis players vs. school pupils, 12/13 yrs vs. 14/15 yrs old vs. 16/17 yrs old, female vs. male) | Anthropometric Physiological | Height, weight, BMI Polygon, forward bend, hand-tapping, sit-ups | Tennis players were taller than average school pupils and outperformed them in all physiological measurements, across sex and age categories as well as measurement periods. Findings concerning weight and therefore also BMI were inconsistent |
James et al. (2022) [38] | Squash Competitive elite | Male (21) Female (10) Total (31) | 20 ± 4 18 ± 5 NR | NR | Two-way ANOVAa (performance level [high world ranking vs. low world ranking] vs. sex [female vs. male]) | Anthropometrics Physiological | Stature, body mass, skinfolds, girth measures Squash physical performance test (SPPT), mean submax oxygen consumption, VO2max, 5 m sprint, COD, repeated-sprint ability (RSA), SJ, CMJ, blood lactate | Higher-ranked players performed better for SPPT final lap and COD. Assessments of cardiovascular fitness, RSA, COD, and body composition appear highly pertinent for performance profiling of squash players |
Kurtz et al. (2019) [32] | Tennis Competitive elite | Female (14) Male (15) Total (29) | 18–25 18–25 18–25 | NR | Multiple linear regression predicting Universal Tennis Ranking | Physiological Technical | Spider test, footwork taps Serve- forehand- and backhand velocity | Serve, forehand and backhand velocity, agility, and endurance explain 86.6% of the variance in tennis rankings. Also, all variables correlate strongly to rankings in collegiate athletes. Tennis-specific endurance correlates moderately to ranking |
Sánchez-Muñoz et al. (2020) [39] | Padel Successful elite | Male Elite (25) Sub-Elite (35) Total (60) | 31.1 ± 5.7 25.3 ± 5.9 27.7 ± 6.4 | NR | Independent t-testa (elite [PPT events] vs. sub-elite [(pre-)qualifying rounds]) | Anthropometric Physiological | Stature, body mass, arm span, skinfolds, girths, breadths, width, and length of the hands, BMI, body fat%, muscle mass CMJ, grip strength, lumbar isometric strength, SR | Elite padel players had lower body fat and higher lumbar isometric strength than sub-elite players. No differences were found for the other measurements |
Söğüt (2017) [33] | Tennis Competitive elite | Male (18) Elite (8) Club (10) Female (17) Elite (7) Club (10) Total (35) | 13.43 ± 0.79 13.60 ± 0.70 11.88 ± 0.83 12.20 ± 1.32 NR | NR | Mann–Whitney U-testa | Physiological Technical | KTK Serve velocity | Elite players had higher scores for serve speed and motor coordination than club-level players |
Ziemann et al. (2011) [36] | Tennis Competitive elite | Female Total (17) | 15–17 | NR | Pearson correlationa | Anthropometric Physiological | Height, weight, BMI, fat-free mass, body fat%, fat mass VO2max, Wingate anaerobic power test, blood lactate | Ranking position was not significantly correlated to body composition. Also, ranking position was significantly negatively correlated with VO2max (r = − .682, p < .01). Finally, ranking position was not significantly correlated with Wingate test results Ranking positions were related to aerobic capacity. Anaerobic capacity was related to BMI and lean body mass but was of minor importance for ranking positions |
Three-dimensional | ||||||||
Robertson et al. (2022) [43] | Badminton Competitive elite | Male Elite (10) Sub-elite (24) Novice (27) Total (61) | 15.22 ± 1.33 15.41 ± 1.56 15.79 ± 1.89 NR | NR | MANCOVA and discriminant analysis | Anthropometrics Physiological Psychological | Body height, sitting height, body weight, fat%, BMI SR, knee push-ups, sit-ups, standing broad jump, shuttle run, 5-,10-, 20-, 30-m sprint, endurance shuttle run, CMJ with and without arms. Jumping sideways, moving sideways, balance beams (KTK) Psychological characteristics of developing excellence questionnaire version 2 | Significant differences were found in physical performance (explosive power, flexibility, speed, and endurance), BMI, and motor coordination and elites scored highest. In the psychological domain, perfectionism was found to be significantly different and elites scored highest. The discriminant analysis, combining anthropometry, physical performance, motor coordination, and psychological traits, showed that 100% of the participants were correctly classified and 80.0% were correctly cross-validated |
Sánchez-Pay et al. (2021) [41] | Tennis World-class elite | Male Total (15) | 19.66 ± 1.63 | NR | T-testsa (professional vs. national) | Anthropometrics Physiological Technical | Body mass, body height, BMI, arm-, forearm-, thigh-, leg-length Grip strength, CMJ, MBT Serve velocity, jump on service | Professional level players showed higher values in all parameters (except in MBT shot put), although no statistically significant differences were found between level groups (p > .05) |
Ulbricht et al. (2016) [42] | Tennis Competitive elite | Male (546) Female (366) Total (912) | 13.14 ± 1.39 13.06 ± 1.29 NR | NR | Independent sample t-testa for differences between national and regional players Spearman’s rank correlations for the relationship between performance variables | Anthropometrics Physiological Technical | Height, weight, sitting height Grip strength, CMJ, 5-, 10-, 20 m sprint, MBT, tennis-specific sprint test, hit and turn test Serve velocity | Results showed that serve velocity (r = 20.43–0.64 for female subjects [♀]; r = 20.33–0.49 for male subjects [♂]) and upper-body power (e.g., MBT r = 20.26–20.49 ♀; r = 20.20–20.49 ♂) were the most correlated predictors of tennis performance (i.e., national youth ranking) in both female and male tennis players. Moreover, national players showed better performance levels than their regional counterparts, mainly in the most predictive physical characteristics (i.e., serve velocity: effect size [ES], 0.78–1.04 ♀; ES 0.92–1.02 ♂, MBT: ES, 0.66–0.88 ♀; ES, 0.67–1.04 ♂) and specific endurance (ES, 0.05–0.95 ♀; ES, 0.31–0.73 ♂) |