EAL

NAP: Energy Balance and Body Composition (2007)

Citation:

Can F, Yilmaz I, Erden Z. Morphological characteristics and performance variables of women soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2004; 18(3): 480-485.

PubMed ID: 15320653

Study Design:

Case-control study

Class:

C - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

NEUTRAL: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.

Research Purpose:

To describe morphological characteristics of women soccer players and to determine the effect of soccer training on their performance variables in comparison with sedentary women.

Inclusion Criteria:

Female athletes who play soccer in one of the top-class Turkish soccer teams with at least three years of active participation in professional soccer
Sedentary women who were students at Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy who had never actively participated in regular sports or such a sportive training.

Exclusion Criteria:

Excluded if not included above.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Experimental: Female members of Turkish professional soccer teams
Control: Female physical therapy students at Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy.

Design

Case-control study.

Blinding Used

All measurements taken by same physical therapist.

Statistical Analysis

Students T-test for comparisons between groups, significance set at P≤0.05.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Measurements taken in both groups and compared.

Dependent Variables

Circumference measures around biceps, relaxed arm, forearm, thigh, calf, chest and abdomen with a constant tension steel tape
Diameters taken for biacromial, biiliac, bitrochanteric, wrist, elbow, knee and ankle sites
Skinfold sites were biceps, triceps, subscapular, chest, midaxillar, abdominal, suprailiac, anterior thigh, medial calf; all taken on right side of body with Lange skinfold caliper
Sit-and-reach test for low back and hamstring flexibility
Four-level squat thrust agility test in 10 seconds for agility
Sargent Vertical Jump and standing broad jump for anaerobic power and leg muscle power, respectively
Dynamic pulmonary functions measured by vitalograph spirometer (FEV1, FVC).

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 17 for experimental; 17 for controls
Attrition (final N): 17 for experimental; 17 for controls.

Age

Experimental: 20.73±2.09 years
Control: 21.47±1.06 years.

Ethnicity

Not reported.

Other Relevant Demographics

All subjects from Turkey.

Location

Ankara, Turkey.

Summary of Results:

	Athletes		Non-athletes
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Age (years)	20.73	2.09	21.47	1.06
Weight (kg)	56.63	5.03	52.80	6.49
Chest Circumference (cm)	85.10	3.43	82.10	3.95
Abdomen Circumference (cm)	74.57*	3.14	72.23	6.38
Thigh Circumference (cm)	51.07*	2.87	3.12	2.26
Biacromial Diameter (cm)	35.27*	1.95	34.97	2.91
Biiliac diameter (cm)	27.93	1.97	28.77	1.75
Knee Diameter (cm)	8.91*	0.77	8.17	0.65
Ankle Diameter (cm)	6.42*	0.51	6.03	0.42
Percentage body fat	19.75*	0.69	22.63	0.50
Absolute body fat (kg)	10.87	2.62	12.17	2.68
Lean body weight (kg)	45.66*	3.66	40.63	3.91
Endomorphy	3.07*	0.80	3.57	0.95
Mesomorphy	3.55	0.89	3.35	1.33
Ectomorphy	2.43	0.96	2.90	0.97
Trunk Extension flexibility (cm)	28.33*	7.24	20.57	7.32
Sit and Reach Test (cm)	12.23	8.94	9.00	7.63
Squat thrust (reps in 10 seconds)	6.28*	0.66	4.48	0.52
Vertical jump (cm)	34.48*	7.11	25.77	6.51
Standing broad jump (cm)	192.48*	15.60	152.20	21.55
Anaerobic power (kg/s)	73.08*	10.93	59.05	11.22
FEV 1 (percentage)	90.53	9.52	95.75	6.80
FVC (percentage)	90.93	8.02	94.25	5.44
FEV 1/FVC (percentage)	88.07	3.84	87.50	8.29
PEF (percentage)	104.33	12.71	107.67	13.85

Author Conclusion:

Female soccer players are less endomorphic than sedentary women
Anaerobic power, leg power and agility were higher in athletes than in non-athletes
No significant differences in flexibility or pulmonary functions
Regular training may generally increase the mesomorphic component and decrease the endomorphic component by increasing the level of performance.

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy (Turkey)

Reviewer Comments:

No information on blinding by data collectors, but all data collected by same physical therapist
No information provided on demographics or other relevant health information
No information on study funding source provided.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	N/A
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	N/A

Validity Questions
1.	Was the research question clearly stated?		Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	N/A
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?		???
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	No
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	???
3.	Were study groups comparable?		Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	N/A
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?		Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	Yes
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	Yes
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	N/A
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		No
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	No
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	???
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	???
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		N/A
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	N/A
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	N/A
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	N/A
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	N/A
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	N/A
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		Yes
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	N/A
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	Yes
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	N/A
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?		Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	N/A
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	N/A
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	Yes
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?		Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	Yes
10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		???
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	No
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	???