scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study sought to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks; and (c) recommend guidance for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists of key papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included a total of 28 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (64.3%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (35.7%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (32.1%), ‘Literature review’ (28.6%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (25.0%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.7%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (7.1%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.6%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies. Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide recommendations to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background: A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia.Methods: A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.Results: We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies.Conclusions: Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
A Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. For the purposes of this study we have defined a methodological framework as a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.Results We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; diverse terms for methodological framework were used across and, interchangeably, within studies.Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.Trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals How methodological frameworks are being developed: Evidence from a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola McMeekin ◽  
Olivia Wu ◽  
Evi Germeni ◽  
Andrew Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Background A methodological framework is a structured guide to completing a process or procedure. Although the benefits of using methodological frameworks are increasingly recognised, to date, there is no formal definition of what constitutes a ‘methodological framework’, nor is there any published guidance on how to develop one. This study’s aims are to: (a) map the existing landscape on the use of methodological frameworks; (b) identify approaches used for the development of methodological frameworks and terminology used; and (c) provide suggestions for developing future methodological frameworks. We took a broad view and did not limit our study to methodological frameworks in research and academia. Methods A scoping review was conducted, drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched two major electronic databases (MEDLINE and Web of Science), as well as grey literature sources and the reference lists and citations of all relevant papers. Study characteristics and approaches used for development of methodological frameworks were extracted from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. Results We included a total of 30 studies, representing a wide range of subject areas. The most commonly reported approach for developing a methodological framework was ‘Based on existing methods and guidelines’ (66.7%), followed by ‘Refined and validated’ (33.3%), ‘Experience and expertise’ (30.0%), ‘Literature review’ (26.7%), ‘Data synthesis and amalgamation’ (23.3%), ‘Data extraction’ (10.0%), ‘Iteratively developed’ (6.7%) and ‘Lab work results’ (3.3%). There was no consistent use of terminology; the studies included a range of terms for ‘methodological framework’, which were also used interchangeably within studies. Conclusions Although no formal guidance exists on how to develop a methodological framework, this scoping review found an overall consensus in approaches used, which can be broadly divided into three phases: (a) identifying data to inform the methodological framework; (b) developing the methodological framework; and (c) validating, testing and refining the methodological framework. Based on these phases, we provide suggestions to facilitate the development of future methodological frameworks.

scholarly journals Benefits and Limitations of Business Process Model Notation in Modeling Patient Healthcare Trajectory: A Scoping Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kassim Said Abasse ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Gartner ◽  
Laurence Labbé ◽  
Paolo Landa ◽  
Catherine Paquet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Business Process ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Trajectory Optimization ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Business Process Model ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Healthcare Trajectory

Introduction: The adoption of business process model notation (BPMN) in modeling healthcare trajectory can enhance the efficiency and efficacy of healthcare organizations and ultimately improve patient outcomes while restraining costs. However, existing systematic reviews have been inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of BPMN in modeling healthcare trajectory. The aims of this scoping review are to map and aggregate existing evidence on the main benefits and limitations associated with BPMN in healthcare trajectory and highlight areas of improvement on using BPMN and its extensions in healthcare practices, which have not been systematically scoped. Methods and Analysis: The proposed scoping review will be performed in accordance with the methodological framework suggested by Arksey and O’Malley and further refined by Levac et al. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be systematically searched using predefined keywords, from 2004 onwards. The review will include any study design with a focus on the application of the BPMN approach applied for optimizing healthcare trajectories (e.g., diagnostic, and therapeutic process, decision making, cost, and resources), published in either English or French. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A customized data extraction form will be used to extract data from the included studies. The results will be presented in tabular format developed iteratively by the research team.Ethics and dissemination: Research ethics approval is not required as exclusively secondary data will be used. Review findings will be used to advance understanding about BPMN, its extensions and its application in healthcare trajectory optimization. The review will develop recommendations about how to tailor BPMN strategies at optimizing care pathways and decision-making processes. Our findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presentations and through discussions with relevant organizations and stakeholders.

scholarly journals Benefits and Limitations of Business Process Model Notation in Modeling Patient Healthcare Trajectory: A Scoping Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kassim Said Abasse ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Gartner ◽  
Laurence Labbé ◽  
Paolo Landa ◽  
Catherine Paquet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Business Process ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Trajectory Optimization ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Business Process Model ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Healthcare Trajectory

Abstract Introduction: The adoption of business process model notation (BPMN) in modeling healthcare trajectory can enhance the efficiency and efficacy of healthcare organizations and ultimately improve patient outcomes while restraining costs. However, existing systematic reviews have been inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of BPMN in modeling healthcare trajectory. The aims of this scoping review are to map and aggregate existing evidence on the main benefits and limitations associated with BPMN in healthcare trajectory and highlight areas of improvement on using BPMN and its extensions in healthcare practices, which have not been systematically scoped. Methods and Analysis : The proposed scoping review will be performed in accordance with the methodological framework suggested by Arksey and O’Malley and further refined by Levac et al. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be systematically searched using predefined keywords, from 2004 onwards. The review will include any study design with a focus on the application of the BPMN approach applied for optimizing healthcare trajectories (e.g., diagnostic, and therapeutic process, decision making, cost, and resources), published in either English or French. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A customized data extraction form will be used to extract data from the included studies. The results will be presented in tabular format developed iteratively by the research team. Ethics and dissemination : Research ethics approval is not required as exclusively secondary data will be used. Review findings will be used to advance understanding about BPMN, its extensions and its application in healthcare trajectory optimization. The review will develop recommendations about how to tailor BPMN strategies at optimizing care pathways and decision-making processes. Our findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presentations and through discussions with relevant organizations and stakeholders.

Establishing a Working Definition of User Experience for eHealth Interventions: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported User Experience Measures and Delphi Consultation with eHealth Researchers and Adolescents (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda S Newton ◽  
Sonja March ◽  
Nicole D Gehring ◽  
Arlen K Rowe ◽  
Ashley D Radomski
Keyword(s):  
User Experience ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Perceived Impact ◽  
Behavioural Factors ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ehealth Intervention

BACKGROUND Across eHealth intervention studies involving children, adolescents, and their parents, researchers have measured users’ experiences to assist with intervention development, refinement, and evaluation. To date, there are no widely agreed-on definitions or measures of ‘user experience’ to support a standardized approach for evaluation and comparison within or across interventions. OBJECTIVE We conducted a scoping review with subsequent Delphi consultation to (1) identify how user experience is defined and measured in eHealth research studies, (2) characterize the measurement tools used, and (3) establish working definitions for domains of user experience that could be used in future eHealth evaluations. METHODS We systematically searched electronic databases for published and gray literature available from January 1, 2005 to April 11, 2019. Studies assessing an eHealth intervention that targeted any health condition and was designed for use by children, adolescents, and their parents were eligible for inclusion. eHealth interventions needed to be web-, computer-, or mobile-based, mediated by the internet with some degree of interactivity. Studies were also required to report the measurement of ‘user experience’ as first-person experiences, involving cognitive and behavioural factors, reported by intervention users. Two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance and appraised the quality of user experience measures using published criteria: ‘well-established’, ‘approaching well-established’, ‘promising’, or ‘not yet established’. We conducted a descriptive analysis of how user experience was defined and measured in each study. Review findings subsequently informed the survey questions used in the Delphi consultations with eHealth researchers and adolescent users for how user experience should be defined and measured. RESULTS Of the 8,634 articles screened for eligibility, 129 and one erratum were included in the review. Thirty eHealth researchers and 27 adolescents participated in the Delphi consultations. Based on the literature and consultations, we proposed working definitions for six main user experience domains: acceptability, satisfaction, credibility, usability, user-reported adherence, and perceived impact. While most studies incorporated a study-specific measure, we identified ten well-established measures to quantify five of the six domains of user experience (all except for self-reported adherence). Our adolescent and researcher participants ranked perceived impact as one of the most important domains of user experience and usability as one of the least important domains. Rankings between adolescents and researchers diverged for other domains. CONCLUSIONS Findings highlight the various ways user experience has been defined and measured across studies and what aspects are most valued by researchers and adolescent users. We propose incorporating the working definitions and available measures of user experience to support consistent evaluation and reporting of outcomes across studies. Future studies can refine the definitions and measurement of user experience, explore how user experience relates to other eHealth outcomes, and inform the design and use of human-centred eHealth interventions.

scholarly journals Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasamin Veziari ◽  
Saravana Kumar ◽  
Matthew Leach
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Educational Strategies ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Over the past few decades, the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably and along with it, scrutiny regarding its evidence base. While this is to be expected, and is in line with other health disciplines, research in CAM is confronted by numerous obstacles. This scoping review aims to identify and report the strategies implemented to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. Methods The scoping review was undertaken using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, JBI and the grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened the records, following which data extraction was completed for the included studies. Descriptive synthesis was used to summarise the data. Results Of the 7945 records identified, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Using the oBSTACLES instrument as a framework, the included studies reported diverse strategies to address barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. All included studies reported the use of educational strategies and collaborative initiatives with CAM stakeholders, including targeted funding, to address a range of barriers. Conclusions While the importance of addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM has been recognised, to date, much of the focus has been limited to initiatives originating from a handful of jurisdictions, for a small group of CAM disciplines, and addressing few barriers. Myriad barriers continue to persist, which will require concerted effort and collaboration across a range of CAM stakeholders and across multiple sectors. Further research can contribute to the evidence base on how best to address these barriers to promote the conduct and application of research in CAM.

scholarly journals Definitions and Prevalence of Multimorbidity in Large Database Studies: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1673
Author(s):  
Ying Pin Chua ◽  
Ying Xie ◽  
Poay Sian Sabrina Lee ◽  
Eng Sing Lee
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Coding Systems ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies ◽  
Definition Of

Background: Multimorbidity presents a key challenge to healthcare systems globally. However, heterogeneity in the definition of multimorbidity and design of epidemiological studies results in difficulty in comparing multimorbidity studies. This scoping review aimed to describe multimorbidity prevalence in studies using large datasets and report the differences in multimorbidity definition and study design. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases to identify large epidemiological studies on multimorbidity. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol for reporting the results. Results: Twenty articles were identified. We found two key definitions of multimorbidity: at least two (MM2+) or at least three (MM3+) chronic conditions. The prevalence of multimorbidity MM2+ ranged from 15.3% to 93.1%, and 11.8% to 89.7% in MM3+. The number of chronic conditions used by the articles ranged from 15 to 147, which were organized into 21 body system categories. There were seventeen cross-sectional studies and three retrospective cohort studies, and four diagnosis coding systems were used. Conclusions: We found a wide range in reported prevalence, definition, and conduct of multimorbidity studies. Obtaining consensus in these areas will facilitate better understanding of the magnitude and epidemiology of multimorbidity.

Regulatory frameworks for clinical trial data sharing during the Pandemic and beyond: A scoping review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nachiket Gudi ◽  
Prashanthi Kamath ◽  
Trishnika Chakraborty ◽  
Anil G. Jacob ◽  
Shradha Parsekar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Data Sharing ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Regulatory Documents ◽  
Share Data

BACKGROUND Data sharing from clinical trials is well recognized and has widely gained recognition amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The competing interests of powerful stakeholders expressed through data exclusivity practices make clinical trial data sharing a complex phenomenon. The wider acceptance of data sharing practices in the absence of mandated policy creates uncertainty among trial investigators to count for risks vs benefit from sharing trial data. Data sharing becomes further complex as the trial data sharing is governed by the regional policies. This drew our attention to explore policies for informed data sharing. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature around the regulatory documents that guide trial investigators to share clinical trial data. METHODS We followed a Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review approach and have reported the article according to the PRISMA extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). In addition to the use of the electronic databases, a targeted website search was performed to access relevant grey literature. The articles were screened at the title-abstract and the full text stages based on the selection criteria. All the included articles for data extraction were in English language. Data extraction was done independently using a pre-tested data extraction sheet. Included literature focused on clinical trial data sharing policies, guidelines, or SOPs. A narrative synthesis approach was used to summarize the findings. RESULTS This scoping review identified four articles and 13 policy documents from the grey literature. A majority of the clinical trial agencies require an agreement for data sharing between the data requestor/organization and trial agency. None of the policy documents mandates informed consent for data sharing. The time interval to share data underlying results, varies from six to 18 months from the time of trial publication. Depending upon trial data, policies follow both controlled and open access models. Regulatory documents identified in both scientific and grey literature emphasized on good research principles of protection of privacy of participant data and data anonymization through data sharing agreement between the data requester and trial agency. Need for an informed consent and cost of data sharing, timeline to share data, incentives, or reward to promote data sharing and capacity building for data sharing have remained grey areas in these policy documents. CONCLUSIONS This paper acknowledges the vital role of clinical data sharing from a public health perspective. We found that given the challenges around clinical trial data sharing, developing a feasible mechanism for data sharing is important. We suggest that standardizing data sharing processes by framing a concise policy with key elements of data sharing mechanisms could be easier to practice rather than a rigid and comprehensive data sharing policy. CLINICALTRIAL This scoping review protocol has not been registered and published.

scholarly journals Diagnosing Overtraining Syndrome: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110447
Author(s):  
Justin Carrard ◽  
Anne-Catherine Rigort ◽  
Christian Appenzeller-Herzog ◽  
Flora Colledge ◽  
Karsten Königstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Female Athletes ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Exercise Tests ◽  
Overtraining Syndrome ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Study Characteristics

Context: Overtraining syndrome (OTS) is a condition characterized by a long-term performance decrement, which occurs after a persisting imbalance between training-related and nontraining-related load and recovery. Because of the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test, OTS remains a diagnosis of exclusion. Objective: To systematically review and map biomarkers and tools reported in the literature as potentially diagnostic for OTS. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus were searched from database inception to February 4, 2021, and results screened for eligibility. Backward and forward citation tracking on eligible records were used to complement results of database searching. Study Selection: Studies including athletes with a likely OTS diagnosis, as defined by the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine, and reporting at least 1 biomarker or tool potentially diagnostic for OTS were deemed eligible. Study Design: Scoping review following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Athletes’ population, criteria used to diagnose OTS, potentially diagnostic biomarkers and tools, as well as miscellaneous study characteristics were extracted. Results: The search yielded 5561 results, of which 39 met the eligibility criteria. Three diagnostic scores, namely the EROS-CLINICAL, EROS-SIMPLIFIED, and EROS-COMPLETE scores (EROS = Endocrine and Metabolic Responses on Overtraining Syndrome study), were identified. Additionally, basal hormone, neurotransmitter and other metabolite levels, hormonal responses to stimuli, psychological questionnaires, exercise tests, heart rate variability, electroencephalography, immunological and redox parameters, muscle structure, and body composition were reported as potentially diagnostic for OTS. Conclusion: Specific hormones, neurotransmitters, and metabolites, as well as psychological, electrocardiographic, electroencephalographic, and immunological patterns were identified as potentially diagnostic for OTS, reflecting its multisystemic nature. As exemplified by the EROS scores, combinations of these variables may be required to diagnose OTS. These scores must now be validated in larger samples and within female athletes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document