Relationship Between Shooting Performance and Biomechanical Parameters Associated with Body Stability in Archery: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Body stability plays a decisive role in archery, particularly during the aiming phase. A systematic review was conducted, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, to critically examine the existing evidence on the association between body stability parameters and shooting performance. Methods: A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, SportDiscus, and Cochrane Reviews databases was performed. Studies published until 12 July 2024 were considered. Results: Sixteen articles were selected, and we analyzed the following biomechanical parameters related to body stability: center of pressure displacement, velocity, and ellipse area; bow sway; and sway of markers placed on the head, sternum, and pelvis. The findings consistently showed that reduced center of pressure displacement and velocity, along with smaller center of pressure ellipse area, were associated with superior shooting outcomes. Although studies are scarce, data suggest that lower bow sway is associated with better shooting performance. The scarcity of research on the sway of markers placed in anatomical points does not allow for conclusions about their effectiveness as performance predictors. Despite its relevance, no studies have assessed the center of gravity data. Therefore, further research is needed to address this important point. Conclusions: Although studies have examined several parameters, the literature remains inconclusive regarding which of these parameters best predicts shooting quality.

1. Introduction

Body stability presents two forms: (a) dynamic stability, i.e., the capacity to maintain body support during body movement, and (b) static stability, i.e., the capacity of the body to maintain a quasi-static position [1]. These two forms are both controlled by the three levels of the central nervous system, i.e., cerebral cortex—upper level; brain stem—middle level; and spinal cord—lower level [2,3]. During body control, there is a hierarchical organization and interdependence between these three levels. This way, the spinal cord integrates all information that arrives from various proprioceptive receptors (e.g., Golgi tendon organ and neuromuscular spindle), controlling stability at the joint level [2]. Moreover, the foot functions as an integrated unit that plays a key role in postural control and regulation at the spinal cord level [4]. As the body’s direct interface with the ground during quiet standing, it provides essential plantar cutaneous information that contributes significantly to maintaining posture [4]. On the other hand, the brain stem plays a crucial role in the control of stability at a global level, i.e., the sensory system, the vestibular system, and the sensory receptors work together to provide integrated information about the body’s position as well as the role of muscles in stabilizing posture [2]. Thus, body stability can be differentiated into postural stability and joint stability. Postural stability can be defined as the capacity to maintain proper body support throughout movement, while joint stability is the capacity to control the muscles associated with the joint, maintaining the proper angular position [5].

Archery is an extremely technical sport in which high-performance shooting is defined as the ability to shoot an arrow at a given target with accuracy [6]. The archery shooting technique consists of a sequence of movements that can be divided into several phases, namely (Figure 1): (first) the set-up phase—in which the archer places himself/herself on the shooting line, nocks the arrow, and raises the bow; (second) the drawing phase—in which the archer pulls the bowstring to the full draw length of the draw (reaching the anchoring); (third) the aiming phase—in which the archer focuses on the orientation of the arrow to the target, between anchoring and releasing the arrow; and (fourth) the follow-through phase—after releasing the arrow, the archer assumes a static position that precedes the relaxation of both arms [7]. Archers need good motor control during the execution of a shot, especially during the aiming phase, in which they try to maintain a static body posture [8]. For this reason, postural stability is an important capacity to achieve high performance [9,10]. Moreover, joint stability is also a relevant factor regarding performance in archery, namely the shoulder and wrist stability of the upper limb that holds the bow [11,12].

The biomechanical data usually used to assess postural stability comprise the center of gravity (COG) and the center of pressure (COP) data or variables that relate these two parameters [13,14,15,16,17,18]. Regarding COP data, COP velocity seems to be the most informative parameter concerning postural stability [19]. In shooting sports, several studies have related shooting performance and these biomechanical parameters associated with body stability, i.e., higher COP sway generally led to poorer performance in rifle shooting [18,19,20]. Moreover, top-level rifle shooters showed superior stability, particularly in the seconds before firing, while novices showed increased COP sway during lower-scoring shots [21]. In archery, some studies also used COP sway, collected through force platforms, as the reference parameter to study postural stability [9,22,23]. Moreover, inertial sensors placed at anatomical points, close to the presumed COG position, were also used [10]. Data from these studies pointed out a negative association between shooting performance and postural sway during the aiming phase, i.e., lower postural sway contributed to higher performance.

Bow sway has also been considered as a stability parameter related to archery performance [9,10]. In these studies, bow sway was collected using inertial sensors placed at the bow. In the authors’ view, this parameter primarily reflects the archer’s ability to stabilize the shoulder and wrist joint complexes of the upper limb that holds the bow. However, this parameter is also associated with the control of postural stability. While one of the previous studies suggested a potential negative association between bow sway and shooting effectiveness [9], the other found no relationship between these variables [10]. Another method for evaluating bow sway involves the use of optoelectronic devices equipped with visible lasers, which track and record the aiming trajectory on the target [24].

Understanding the relationship between archery performance and parameters related to joint and postural stability is crucial for optimizing training strategies in this sport. Thus, if it is verified that any of the described parameters is clearly associated with performance in archery, it may imply the use of technologies that allow their monitoring and provide feedback on them during training. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has comprehensively examined this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to synthesize the existing knowledge on the relationship between shooting performance/quality and body stability parameters measured during archery shooting.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Items for Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [25]. This review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42024620566).

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

This review included studies that analyzed the association between shooting performance/quality and biomechanical parameters related to postural stability collected during archery shooting, i.e., (1) COG, through optoelectric or inertial sensor systems; (2) COP, through force or pressure platforms; and (3) bow sway data. Additionally, studies that compared groups with different levels of archery performance were also included. On the other hand, studies involving disabled populations were excluded because of the potential differences in neuromuscular control mechanisms, which may limit comparability with able-bodied archers. Case reports, reviews, and dissertations were also excluded. No restrictions were imposed regarding language or publication date.

2.2. Search Strategy and Selection Process

This systematic review was conducted independently by 2 researchers (JS and JB), using the following sequential protocol: (1) a comprehensive search of articles was made on MEDLINE Complete, Sport Discus, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL Complete for articles published until 12 July 2024, using the following search sentence—((archer*) OR (bow) OR (arrow)) AND ((posture*) OR (stability) OR (balance)) AND ((biomechanic*) OR (kinematic*) OR (kinetic) OR (centre of pressure) OR (center of pressure) OR (centre of gravity) OR (center of gravity) OR (centre of mass) OR (center of mass) OR (sway)); (2) duplicates were excluded using the Mendeley; (3) studies were selected by title and abstract; and (4) studies were screened by analyzing the complete text. In the third and fourth points of the protocol, a third reviewer (PA) was consulted if there were any differences between the first two reviewers. Additionally, a general manual search of articles was also conducted (using the references of the selected articles) to ensure that no relevant study was omitted from this systematic review. To assess the level of agreement between reviewers, Cohen’s kappa value was calculated, with values interpreted using the Landis and Koch (1977) scale [26].

2.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data from the selected studies were extracted by one reviewer (JS) using the following form: (1) authors and year of publication; (2) sample characteristics—sample size and sociodemographic data, i.e., age and gender, and data related to archery—level of performance, years of experience, and training data; and (4) study results—the association between shooting performance and biomechanical parameters related to postural stability collected during archery shooting. This information was checked by a second reviewer (PA).

2.4. Risk of Bias Assessment

The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies [27]. This tool comprises 6 components: (1) selection bias; (2) study design; (3) confounders; (4) blinding; (5) data collection method; and (6) withdrawals and dropouts. These 6 components were evaluated according to the following classification: “1”—strong classification in the component; “2”—moderate classification in the component; “3”—weak classification in the component. If no components were deemed weak, the article’s overall methodological quality was deemed strong. If one component was weak, the overall quality was deemed moderate. If two or more components were deemed weak, the article’s overall quality was deemed weak. Two researchers (JS and JB) independently evaluated the studies selected for this systematic review regarding their methodological quality. Any disagreements were resolved by a consensus discussion, and a third reviewer was consulted if disagreements persisted. The level of agreement between reviewers was also calculated using Cohen’s kappa statistics.

3. Results

A total of 217 studies were identified in the databases, with the following distribution: CINAHL (17 studies), MEDLINE Complete (125 studies), SportDiscus (55 studies), and Cochrane Trials (20 studies). After excluding duplicates, 188 studies were evaluated regarding their titles and abstracts, resulting in 27 studies selected for full-text reading. The inter-rater agreement for this phase was substantial, with a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.76. After full-text screening, 10 studies were included in this review. On the other hand, 18 additional studies were identified by manual search. Their full texts were screened, resulting in six additional studies being included in this review. For full-text screening, Cohen’s kappa value was 0.82, indicating almost perfect agreement. This way, 16 studies were included in the present systematic review. The selection process is illustrated in Figure 2.

3.1. Methodological Quality of Studies

The methodological analysis of the 16 studies included in this systematic review [8,9,10,22,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] revealed that most were globally evaluated as having moderate methodological quality (

Table 1. Methodological quality assessment of the selected studies, using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.

Study	Selection Bias	Study Design	Confounders	Blinding	Data Collection Methods	Withdrawals and Dropouts	Global
Edelmann-Nusser et al. (2006) [8]	2	2	3	3	1	1	3
Keast and Elliott (1990) [28]	2	2	2	2	1	1	1
Kuch et al. (2023) [29]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Mason and Pelegrim (1986) [30]	3	2	3	3	1	2	3
Na et al. (2024) [31]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Nasoulas et al. (2016) [37]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Sarro et al. (2020) [9]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Serrien et al. (2018) [36]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Simsek et al. (2013) [38]	2	2	3	3	1	1	3
Simsek et al. (2019) [22]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Song et al. (2023) [32]	3	2	2	3	1	1	3
Spratford and Campbell (2017) [23]	1	2	1	3	1	1	2
Stuart and Atha (1990) [34]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Taha et al. (2017) [10]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2
Tinaczy (2011) [33]	2	2	3	3	1	1	3
Zawi and Mohamed (2013) [35]	2	2	2	3	1	1	2

1—strong; 2—moderate; 3—weak

). Five were globally evaluated as weak and only one as strong. Regarding the selection bias component, 14 were evaluated as moderate because the sample was representative of the population, and the studies were completed by 60–79% of the initially included subjects. Moreover, one study was classified as strong, while another was classified as weak because the subjects were not representative of the study population. Regarding the study design component, all the studies were classified as moderate because they employed cross-sectional observational designs. Concerning the confounders component, 11 studies were categorized as moderate since they controlled some possible confounding variables. Moreover, only one study was evaluated as strong, while four were rated as weak. Most studies were classified as weak regarding the blinding component because none of them explicitly mentioned methods of blinding researchers or participants. On the other hand, only one was evaluated as moderate because the participants were not aware of the research question. Regarding the data collection methods component, all the studies were classified as strong because their data collection tools demonstrated validity. Finally, 15 studies were evaluated as strong in relation to the withdrawals and dropouts, while one study was evaluated as moderate. The inter-rater agreement for risk of bias assessment was substantial, with a Cohen’s kappa value of 0.67.

3.2. Characteristics of the Selected Studies

The characteristics and results of the 16 studies selected for this systematic review are presented in

Table 2. Characteristics and results of the studies that analyzed the biomechanical parameters associated with body stability during archery shooting.

Studies	Study Aim	Sample Description (Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria; Number; Age; Gender)	Body Stability Assessment During Archery Shooting	Results
Edelmann-Nusser et al. (2006) [8]	To study bow motion during the aiming phase.	Inclusion criteria: participants at the Junior World Championships and German National Championships. Number: seven archers (two males). Age: 16–19 years.	Archers shot 66 arrows at an indoor target (30 m). On-target trajectories of the aim point movement were measured using the NOPTEL-ST-2000 system. Three periods of the aiming phase were computed: between 3 s and 2 s before shot; between 2 s and 1s before shot; and 1 s before shot.	Irregularities during the aiming phase had a negative influence on archers’ scores. Intra-individually, a smaller range of motion of the bow in the last second before the shot appears to have a positive influence on archers’ scores.
Keast and Elliot (1990) [28]	To analyze the relationship between postural sway and the quality of the arrow shot.	Inclusion criteria: elite archers (representing Australia in national or international events). Number: four archers (two males) Age: 17–51 years.	Archers performed two assessments on two different days (100 days apart); in each assessment, the archers shot 30 arrows at a target (30 m). COP sway was collected with a force plate. Quality of shots was categorized as good (8–10 score; considered good and average by archer and coach), average (6–10 score; considered average and bad by archer and coach), and poor (5–7 score; considered bad by archer and coach).	Tendency for the area of postural sway to increase as the quality of the arrow shot decreased.
Kuch et al. (2023) [29]	To characterize the postural strategy used by two groups of archers (elite vs. sub-elite).	Elite group inclusion criteria: at least 10 years of practice and participation in one senior international competition; not injured in the last 6 months. Number: six elite (three men) and seven sub-elite (four men). Age (elite and sub-elite): 27.0 ± 4.7 and 16.5 ± 4.9 years.	Archers shot 18 arrows at a target (70 m). Two force plates were used to collect COP data during the aiming and shooting phases.	The elite group scored higher (p = 0.03). The mean and mean root square distance around the COP mean (anteroposterior direction and oxy plane) were lower in the elite group as well as the 95% confidence ellipse area of COP (p < 0.05). No differences between groups in COP sway amplitudes and velocities.
Mason and Pelegrim (1986) [30]	To study the relationship between postural stability (biomechanical parameters) and shooting accuracy (comparison between junior and senior archers).	Inclusion criteria: not specified. Number: not specified. Age: not specified. Gender: not specified.	Archers shot four arrows at a target (50 m). One force plate was used to measure COP data 1 s before the arrow release (250 Hz). Shooting accuracy was measured using the FITA score.	A correlation was found between COP displacement (anteroposterior direction) and shooting accuracy (p < 0.05). No correlations were found between shooting accuracy and COP displacement (mediolateral direction) and COP velocities. Seniors presented a lower COP displacement (p < 0.05).
Na et al. (2024) [31]	To study whether anticipatory postural adjustments occur before releasing the arrow and how skill levels (experts vs. novices) influence these adjustments.	Inclusion criteria: right-handed men; no neurological or musculoskeletal diseases. Number: nine experts (>10 years of archery training; participation in national and international competitions); nine novices (no previous experience in archery). Age (experts/novices): 27.3 ± 5.6; 27.5 ± 3.4 years.	Archers shot with a laser pointer attached to the bow at a target (10 m). Two force plates and a motion capture system were used to collect COP data and bow displacement.	Expert archers showed smaller COP displacement (p < 0.05) less variability (standard deviation) in the vertical bow sway (p < 0.05). No difference between groups in the maximal COP displacement (after releasing) and anteroposterior and mediolateral variability in bow sway.
Nasoulas et al. (2016) [37]	To investigate the differences between the open and the classic square stance.	Inclusion criteria: participation in national competitions; no injuries in the last year; >1050 FITA score Number: 33 archers (21 males) Age: 30.7 ± 13.1 years.	Archers shot two sets of three arrows at a target (6 m)—one set for each stance. COP data were collected during the aiming phase, using two force plates (250 Hz). Participant performance levels was assessed through the FITA score.	There was no correlation between COP displacement and participant performance level.
Sarro et al. (2020) [9]	To investigate if body sway and bow sway are different according to the shot score.	Inclusion criteria: at least 4 weekly training sessions; participation in national competitions. Number: eight archers (five men). Age: 29.0 ± 10.8 years.	Archers shot six arrows at a target (13 m). Bow stability was analyzed using a reflective marker on the bow. COP data were collected using two pressure plates. Data were collected during the aiming phase.	COP displacement (direction to the target, COP length, and bow trajectory length were higher in the lowest-scoring shot). In the highest-scoring shots, there was a correlation between bow displacement and anteroposterior COP displacement and a correlation between the anteroposterior COP displacement and bow movements (vertical direction).
Serrien et al. (2018) [36]	To study the relationship between posture and shooting accuracy (uncontrolled manifold concept).	Inclusion criteria: right-handed elite archers with at least 1 year of experience in international competitions. Number: six (five men). Age: 16–45 years.	Archers shot 100 arrows at an indoor target (18 m). Bow stability was evaluated through a motion recording system (5 cameras; 50 Hz). Performance was measured by the accuracy of each shot.	Goal-equivalent variability, which stabilizes the orientation of the arrow in space, was significantly larger than that of the non-goal-equivalent variability in arrows of high accuracy (score 9 or 10). Arrows of lower accuracy (score 6, 7, or 8) failed to reach significant thresholds throughout most of the aiming phase.
Simsek et al. (2013) [38]	To compare postural stability profiles of recurve, compound, and traditional Turkish archers.	Inclusion criteria: injury free. Number: 14 men (recurve = 5; compound = 4; traditional = 5). Age: 26.0 ± 1.5 years.	Archers shot 12 arrows at an indoor target (18 m). COP data were collected using a force plate (1000 Hz). Shooting accuracy was measured by the FITA scores.	COP displacement was found to be smaller for higher-scoring shots compared to lower-scoring shots across the three groups.
Simsek et al. (2019) [22]	To compare archers with different levels of experience regarding COP data.	Inclusion criteria: right-handed; no history of neurological or musculoskeletal diseases in last 6 months; recurve bows. Number: nine elites (>1150 FITA score); nine mid-level (1100–1150 FITA score); nine novices (<1100 FITA score). Age (novices/mid-level/elite): 22.6 ± 6.0; 23.8 ± 7.6; 25.5 ± 8.3 years.	Archers shot at an indoor target (18 m). COP data were collected using a force plate. Shooting performance was measured by the FITA scores.	The elites showed smaller COP sway compared to the mid-levels and novices (p < 0.05).
Song et al. (2023) [32]	To examine the effect of release types (i.e., self-triggered and external cue-triggered) on postural strategies in preparation for shooting performance.	Inclusion criteria: right-handed men; no experience in archery shooting; no history of neurological or musculoskeletal diseases. Number: eight. Age: 30.5 ± 3.4 years.	Twenty trials were performed for each condition. COP data were collected using a force plate (1000 Hz). The Normalized Precision Index (calculated using finger forces and orientation of the bow) was used to quantify performance.	COP velocity showed a correlation with shooting accuracy in self-triggered release (r = 0.80; p = 0.009).
Spratford and Campbell (2017) [23]	To quantify how postural stability, both pre- and post-arrow release, impact on shooting performance.	Inclusion criteria: elite recurve archery athletes. Number: 39 (23 men). Age: 24.7 ± 7.3 years.	Archers shot 10 arrows at a target (70 m). COP data were collected 1.0 s prior to arrow release and 0.5 s post-release, using a force plate (1000 Hz). Shooting accuracy was quantified by the target score.	The maximum COP velocity was identified as a variable that predicted shooting performance. The maximum COP velocity after shooting showed a negative correlation with shooting performance (r = −0.80).
Stuart and Atha (1990) [34]	To compare two groups of archers (elite and non-elite) regarding body and bow stability.	Inclusion criteria: skilled archers. Number: nine archers (eight men), divided into two skill level groups based on their handicap (25–34 for elite group and 35–45 for non-elite group). Age: not specified.	Archers shot two series of three arrows at a target (15 m). Markers were placed on the head, elbow, and bow to collect three-dimensional displacement during shooting, using an optoelectronic scanner (30 Hz).	Postural stability did not differentiate elite from non-elite archers. No differences in head, elbow, and bow positions were identified between the groups.
Taha et al. (2017) [10]	To compare two groups of archers (high- and low-performance) regarding body and bow stability.	Inclusion criteria: young archers in sports development programs with 3–6 years of archery experience. Number: 32 archers (24 men). Age: 13–20 years (17.0 ± 0.4 years).	Archers shot six arrows at a target (50 m). An inertial sensor attached to the pelvic area was used to assess postural sway. An inertial sensor attached to the archer’s hand holding the bow was used to assess bow stability.	High-performance archers exhibited reduced postural sway and superior shooting accuracy (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the groups regarding bow sway.
Tinaczy (2011) [33]	To analyze the relationship between postural sway and shooting quality.	Inclusion criteria: elite, right-handed male archers with experience in national and international competitions. Number: four. Ages: 25.7 ± 3.7 years.	Archers shot 30 arrows at an indoor target (18 m). COP data were collected using force plates. Shooting quality was obtained through the target score.	Archers had better shots as COP sways towards right–left within the period of holding the bow tight.
Zawi and Mohamed (2013) [35]	To analyze the relationship between postural sway and shooting accuracy.	Inclusion criteria: skilled recurve archers qualified for national and international competitions. Number: 21 (men and women). Age:13–25 years.	Archers shot 12 arrows at a target (30 m). Postural sway was measured through a sensor placed on the archer’s sternum (Zephyr Bio-Harness). Shooting quality was obtained through target score.	Body sway increased when shooting performance decreased. Shooting accuracy was influenced by COP sway (p = 0.001). Body sway during the release phase was associated with more accurate shots. Postural instability during the set-up phase was identified as the main indicator of shooting performance (β = 0.262; p < 0.001).

COP—center of pressure.

. Eleven studies analyzed the relationship between shooting performance or quality and biomechanical parameters related to body stability [8,9,23,28,30,32,33,35,36,37,38]. These studies used sample sizes ranging from 4 to 39 archers. Most of them had small sample sizes (i.e., samples less than 10 archers), with only three studies exceeding 20 archers [23,35,38]. On the other hand, six studies compared groups of archers with different archery experience/levels [10,22,29,30,31,34]. Their samples ranged from 4 to 16 archers per group. Most studies had samples of fewer than 10 archers per group.

3.3. COP Data and Archery Performance

Eleven studies used force platforms to assess COP parameters during archery shooting [9,22,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,37,38]. Some of these studies found that higher COP displacement yielded lower shooting performance [9,30,38]. Moreover, these results were corroborated by other studies that compared groups of archers with different levels of experience, i.e., groups of archers with a lower level presented higher COP displacement [22,30,31], although one study found no differences between groups [29]. Finally, one other study found that archers have better shots as COP sways towards right–left within the period of holding the bow tight [33].

Two studies found that a lower COP velocity yielded better shooting performance [23,32], while another found no correlation between shooting accuracy and COP velocity [30]. On the other hand, another study found no differences between groups of archers with different levels of archery experience [29].

One study found that a lower COP area yielded better shooting performance [28]. Another study that compared groups of archers with different levels of experience corroborated these results, i.e., a group of archers with a lower level presented a higher COP 95% ellipse area [29].

Because of substantial heterogeneity in study designs, measurement techniques, and outcome variables, a meta-analysis was not feasible.

3.4. Data from Inertial Sensors/Markers Placed at Anatomical Landmarks and Archery Performance

Three studies analyzed postural stability during archery using inertial sensors or markers located in anatomical locations [10,34,35]. One of these studies revealed that high-performance archers presented lower pelvic sway than their low-performance counterparts [10]. Similarly, another study associated greater sternum sway with lower shooting accuracy [35]. However, a third study did not find differences in head sway between archers of different levels (elites vs. non-elites) [34].

3.5. Bow Stability Data and Archery Performance

Three studies assessed bow stability through three-dimensional motion analysis systems that tracked markers placed on the bow [9,34,36]. On the other hand, a study analyzed bow stability with an inertial sensor attached to the archer’s hand holding the bow [10]. Finally, a study evaluated bow stability by analyzing the on-target trajectory [8]. In general, smaller bow sway was noted to be often linked to superior shooting performance [8,9,36], even though two studies did not find differences between groups with different skill levels [10,34].

4. Discussion

In this study, a systematic review was carried out to synthesize the existing knowledge on the relationship between shooting performance/quality and body stability parameters measured during archery shooting, such as COP, COG, and bow sway data. The parameters evaluated in the selected studies included COP displacement, COP velocity, COP ellipse area, and bow sway amplitude. Head, sternum, and pelvic displacements were also evaluated. They were evaluated using force platforms, accelerometers, and motion analysis systems. Although few studies exist, the available data suggest a connection between shooting quality and biomechanical parameters related to postural stability, namely, lower COP displacement, lower COP velocity, and smaller COP ellipse area. In this way, the results suggest that athletes with greater postural control tend to have better shooting performance.

COP was the most evaluated parameter among the selected studies. The results indicate that certain COP parameters, such as COP displacement, velocity, and ellipse area, are associated with improved shooting results. Therefore, the findings of this systematic review have significant implications for the practice of archery. For example, exercises aiming to improve postural stability should be incorporated in archery training programs to improve these biomechanical parameters. Stability exercises, proprioceptive training, and biofeedback with force platforms or inertial sensors, along with isometric strengthening of the shoulder and wrist stabilizing muscles, can help improve postural control and, consequently, shooting accuracy [9,22,23,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Furthermore, stability-focused training can be especially beneficial for less experienced archers or those in the early stages of training, enabling the acceleration of the learning of technical skills through improved body control during shooting [10,22,31].

None of the selected studies analyzed COG data, although this parameter is theoretically relevant to evaluate postural stability [14,15,16,17,18,19]. After a search of the literature, it was also not possible to find studies that analyzed COG data in other shooting sports, such as rifles and air pistols. Most of the studies that examined postural sway in other shooting sports analyzed COP [20,21,39,40]. This gap may be attributed to the methodological challenges involved in accurately measuring COG during dynamic tasks. Despite its complexity, it is important for future research to implement methodologies that analyze COG data during archery shooting, as it represents a key parameter in evaluating postural stability. COG can be evaluated using various types of equipment, such as inertial sensors and motion analysis systems [13,14,15]. These instruments help to accurately measure COG during dynamic tasks, providing valuable insights into an athlete’s stability and performance [15,16,18].

The data suggest that a lower bow sway is associated with better shooting performance, although the number of studies on this topic is limited to just five [8,9,10,34,36]. In this regard, more studies should investigate this issue in the future. On the other hand, bow sway may reflect not only the outcome of whole-body postural stability control but also the control of shoulder and wrist joint stability. To reinforce this idea, it is essential to discuss the neuromuscular mechanisms involved in controlling these joints under the perturbations caused by bow tension and the act of aiming. According to a previous study that examined muscular activation strategies among archers of varying expertise levels [41], elite archers showed reduced use of distal (forearm) muscles and greater reliance on proximal (shoulder) and axial (trapezius) muscles. In contrast, mid-level and novice archers relied more heavily on distal muscles. This differential muscle usage was identified as a key factor influencing the horizontal oscillation of the bowstring. Another study also addressed this issue [42], finding that elite archers exhibited greater activation of the extensor digitorum. This suggests that they avoid gripping the bow handle not only by relaxing the flexor muscles but also by actively contracting the extensor muscle groups. This muscular strategy helps prevent interference with the bow’s forward movement, i.e., the acceleration caused by the bowstring’s pushing force. In practical terms, this implies that the analysis and monitoring of the oscillation of the bow can be a valuable resource for evaluating the athlete’s technique and neuromuscular control. Furthermore, training focused on joint stabilization, through specific activities of isometric strength, motor control, and proprioception, can directly influence the reduction in bow oscillation and, consequently, the improvement in shooting accuracy. Considering its potential as a performance indicator and technical feedback instrument, future research should delve deeper into this parameter, creating uniform measurement protocols and identifying appropriate oscillation limits for varying performance levels.

The use of PRISMA guidelines and a validated instrument to assess methodological quality of studies is a positive aspect of this systematic review. The clarity of the methods used increases the replicability of this study. Moreover, the absence of language restrictions enabled us to include all relevant articles found in this systematic review. However, it is important to highlight the main limitation of this systematic review: only four digital databases were searched, which may reduce the number of selected studies.

Some studies have examined postural stability through the sway of certain markers placed on the head, sternum, and pelvis [10,34,35]. These procedures provide pertinent options for understanding postural control mechanisms during shooting. However, the scarcity of research using this methodology, together with the methodological diversity and reduced samples, still does not allow for strong conclusions about the effectiveness of these indicators as performance predictors. This restriction emphasizes the need for more studies that investigate, in a standardized manner, the relevance of these parameters in the biomechanical assessment of the archer. Moreover, future research may aim to standardize outcome definitions and data collection methods to allow for quantitative synthesis. The integration of biomechanic measures into the training process can simplify the monitoring of postural stability on an individual basis, enabling a more accurate prescription of exercises aimed at motor control and technical efficiency. Although studies have examined several parameters, such as COP [9,22,23,28,29,30,31,32,33,37,38] and bow sway [8,9,10,34,36], the literature remains inconclusive regarding which of these biomechanical parameters best predicts shooting quality. Therefore, future research should aim to address this important question, also considering the role of COG. On the other hand, most of the analyzed studies in this review presented moderate methodological quality [9,10,22,23,29,31,34,35,36,37]. Nonetheless, the main limitation of the studies comprises the limited samples, with most containing fewer than 10 individuals per group. Thus, future research should encompass larger samples.

5. Conclusions

COP was the most evaluated parameter among the selected studies. The results indicated that lower COP displacement, lower COP velocity, and smaller COP ellipse area are associated with improved shooting performance. This way, archers could use force or pressure plates during training to monitor performance data and make adjustments to improve their technique. Although limited, the existing studies suggest that reduced bow sway is associated with improved shooting performance.