Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 10, 2025
Comparison of Kinetic Characteristics of Footwork during Stroke in Table Tennis: Cross-Step and Chasse Step
Published on: June 16, 2021
Biophysical characterization of the tennis serve: A systematic scoping review with evidence gap map
André V Brito1, José Afonso2, Gonçalo Silva2
1Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI(2)D) and Porto Biomechanics Laboratory (LABIOMEP), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/AndreVilela1996.
Objectives:
We aimed to assess the available evidence on the biophysics of the tennis serve, mapping the populations, interventions, contexts and other relevant information to highlight what is already known and to identify gaps in the literature.
Design:
Systematic scoping review with evidence gap map.
Methods:
The protocol was designed according to PRISMA 2020, Prisma-ScR guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. The searches were conducted on July 20, 2022 and updated on April 1, 2023, in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (core collection). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochranes method for nonrandomized studies (RoBANS) and a narrative synthesis of the main findings was performed and supplemented with an evidence gap map.
Results:
Most trials were found on serve kinematics and kinetics (95 %), analyzing only flat serves (84 and 72 %, respectively). Few trials focused on physiology (20 %; e.g. biomarkers), under-19, left or both-handed, female and intermediate beginner or starter players (29, 17, 8 and 7 %, respectively). We found a preponderance of low and unclear risk of bias (63 and 31 %, respectively) and only 7 % high, particularly, on the assessment of confounding variables.
Conclusions:
The current scoping review reveals a few trials on physiological rather than biomechanical variables, as well as the absence of the kick and slice serve, foot-back and foot-up serve, and left-handed, female, and young player analyses. We did not find systematic mistakes or limitations in the design, conduct, or analysis that would distort the results, since only 7 % presented a high risk of bias.
