Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Tracking technologies are used to quantify movement demands in indoor sports, although differences in measurement principles and analytical procedures limit comparisons. This systematic review synthesized their measurement properties, methodological characteristics, and sport-specific applications across indoor training and competition settings. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched to 22 August 2026, supplemented by citation searching. Two reviewers independently screened records and full texts. No protocol was prospectively registered or published. Results: After screening 1419 records and assessing 67 full texts, 71 reports representing 68 identifiable datasets were included. Twenty reports examined validity, reliability, agreement, or technology comparison, and 51 were applied reports. The methodological subset comprised 12 LPS/IPS evaluations, six multimodal comparisons, and two video or computer-vision evaluations. Handball and basketball contributed the most reports, although this distribution may partly reflect the search terms. Position, distance, and velocity were measured more consistently than acceleration, deceleration, changes of direction, and ball-tracking variables. Applied findings varied by playing position, competitive context, match period, and analytical procedures. Conclusions: Tracking technologies provide valuable information on indoor-sport demands, but outputs from different systems are not necessarily interchangeable. Sport-specific validation, standardized procedures, and transparent reporting are required to improve interpretation and comparability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abián et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: