Background: Technology has long been used to track player movements in team sports, with initial tracking via manual coding of video footage. Since then, wearable microtechnology in the form of global and local positioning systems has provided a less labour-intensive way of monitoring movements. As such, there has been a proliferation in research pertaining to these devices. Objective: A systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of wearable microtechnology to quantify movement and specific actions common to intermittent team sports. Methods: A systematic search of CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus was performed; studies included must have been (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of wearable microtechnology to quantify movements or specific actions common to intermittent team sports. Results: A total of 384 studies were retrieved and 187 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 197 studies were screened and the full texts of 88 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 62 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 10 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 72 studies were included in this review. Conclusion: There are many studies investigating the validity and reliability of wearable microtechnology to track movement and detect sport-specific actions. It is evident that for the majority of metrics, validity and reliability are multi-factorial, in that it is dependent upon a wide variety of factors including wearable technology brand and model, sampling rate, type of movement performed (e.g., straight line, change of direction) and intensity of movement (e.g., walk, sprint). Practitioners should be mindful of the accuracy and repeatability of the devices they are using when making decisions on player training loads. Key Points Wearable microtechnology validity and reliability are dependent upon a wide variety of factors including brand, sampling rate, type of movement performed, and intensity of movement. When making decisions on player training loads, practitioners should bear in mind the accuracy and precision of the devices they are using when (1) determining which metrics to track; (2) progressing or regressing an individual`s training; (3) providing `top up` sessions to players based on comparisons to planned loads or other players. Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) generally possess suitable validity for measuring distance during team sport movements; while validity can be compromised when straight line and frequent change of direction movements are performed in isolation for devices with a sampling rate < 10-Hz. Practitioners should utilise GNSS with a sampling rate = 10-Hz to minimise the error associated with distance measures, particularly when movements are performed in isolation (e.g., during rehabilitation drills). Global navigation satellite systems generally possess suitable validity for measuring peak velocity during straight-line sprinting. Local positioning systems appear to be a suitable alternative to GNSS for measuring common metrics (e.g., total distance, average speed), as long as they are set up correctly, although further research must be performed to establish the true validity and reliability of these systems for other measures (e.g., peak velocity). Intra-device reliability is poorly researched; these studies report a combination of biological and technological variation (intended measure) of the device. As such, the true intra-device reliability is difficult to determine in most instances.
© Copyright 2021 Sports Medicine. Springer. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.