Maturity-related selection bias is prevalent in youth soccer, and bio-banding has been proposed as a practical approach to promote fairer competition and support talent identification. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the evidence base and describe the characteristics of bio-banding competition formats used in youth soccer for talent identification and player development. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies were eligible if they examined bio-banding competition formats and reported outcomes related to talent identification or player development. Study quality was assessed using the QualSyst checklist. Thirteen studies involving 861 youth players met the eligibility criteria. While all studies were rated as having good overall methodological quality (mean QualSyst score = 0.85), common limitations included lack of randomization, blinding, and control for confounding variables. Across studies, bio-banding was associated with a range of reported effects spanning physiological, psychological, technical, and tactical performance outcomes. The included literature was predominantly characterized by small-sided games compared against chronological-age or mixed-maturity groupings. A broad set of implementation characteristics was identified, providing an initial basis to inform future refinement and optimization of bio-banding formats. However, substantial inconsistency was evident in maturation assessment approaches, banding thresholds, competition rules, and outcome reporting, which limited cross-study comparability. Bio-banding can serve as a supplementary method to alter the competitive environment and reveal different player behaviors in youth soccer. However, the current evidence base relies heavily on short-term match responses and proxy outcomes rather than direct evidence of improved selection accuracy or long-term development. Heterogeneity in assessment methods and reporting currently constrains the strength and comparability of the evidence. Further high-quality research using more consistent maturation assessment, banding criteria, competition rules, and standardized outcome reporting is needed to strengthen the evidence base and guide implementation. The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251231375).
Han et al. (Wed,) studied this question.