Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markel Rico-González ◽  
José Pino-Ortega ◽  
Filipe Clemente ◽  
Asier Los Arcos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sports Science

scholarly journals (Protocol) Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews, Guidelines, and Position Stands for Item Extraction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Yu Lin ◽  
Ting-Yu Chueh ◽  
Tsung-Min Hung
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Exercise ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Animal Research Ethics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BackgroundThe issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.MethodsSystematic reviews/meta-analyses, guidelines, and position stands related to resistance exercise since inception will be searched in PubMed and Scopus. Only studies published in English will be included. Two authors will independently screen titles/abstracts and then full-text articles against the inclusion criteria. Basic data will be extracted by the same two authors independently. The same two authors will independently extract items from systematic reviews, guidelines, and position stands that could potentially influence training efficiency, physiological/psychological functions, other health-related variables, or replication. Summaries of the findings and items extracted from the included systematic reviews/meta-analyses and included position stands or guidelines will be presented as tables. Using items adapted from the existing checklist Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), a preferred reporting checklist for resistance exercise studies will be formulated. The protocol for this study was developed according to the reporting checklist for umbrella reviews published by Onishi and Furukawa in 2016.DiscussionThe proposed study is expected to build a reporting checklist with a high level of evidence, which can improve the reporting quality of future resistance exercise studies.Ethics and disseminationApproval from a human/animal research ethics committee is not required. The findings of the proposed study will be disseminated through conference presentations, our lab’s website in plain language, and, if possible, letters to the editor in peer-reviewed journals related to sport and exercise science.RegistrationThis study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title “Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES).” PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

scholarly journals Searching for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on exercise. A descriptive study

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
Antonio José Grande ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
Paul Glasziou
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Mesh Term ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Clinical Queries

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current paradigm of science is to accumulate as much research data as possible, with less thought given to navigation or synthesis of the resulting mass, which hampers locating and using the research. The aim here was to describe the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on exercise, and their journal sources, that have been indexed in PubMed over time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at Bond University, Australia. METHOD: To find RCTs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy" and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Exercise". To find SRs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy", the MeSH term "Exercise" and various methodological filters. RESULTS: Up until 2011, 9,354 RCTs about exercise were published in 1,250 journals and 1,262 SRs in 513 journals. Journals in the area of Sports Science published the greatest number of RCTs and journals categorized as belonging to "Other health professions" area (for example nursing or psychology) published the greatest number of SRs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the principal source for SRs, with 9.8% of the total, while the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise published 4.4% and 5.0% of the RCTs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth and resulting scatter of RCTs and SRs on exercise presents challenges for locating and using this research. Solutions for this issue need to be considered.

scholarly journals Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance

2021 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2021-103987
Author(s):  
Clare L Ardern ◽  
Fionn Büttner ◽  
Renato Andrade ◽  
Adam Weir ◽  
Maureen C Ashe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sport Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Exercise Rehabilitation ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Exercise Medicine ◽  
Sport And Exercise ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

ASHA Leader ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-60
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Questions

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

Hotspots in Psychology – 2020 Edition

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Michael Bošnjak ◽  
Nadine Wedderhoff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This editorial gives a brief introduction to the six articles included in the fourth “Hotspots in Psychology” of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. The format is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research-active fields that have generated a considerable number of primary studies. The common denominator is the research synthesis nature of the included articles, and not a specific psychological topic or theme that all articles have to address. Moreover, methodological advances in research synthesis methods relevant for any subfield of psychology are being addressed. Comprehensive supplemental material to the articles can be found in PsychArchives ( https://www.psycharchives.org ).

Introduction to systematic reviews

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth O'Connor ◽  
Evelyn Whitlock ◽  
Bonnie Spring
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews

Parâmetros e efeitos do laser não ablativo no tratamento de melasma facial

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Felipe Soares Macedo ◽  
Marthina Santos Rosa ◽  
Suélia De Siqueira Rodrigues Fleury Rosa ◽  
Hellen Batista De Carvalho ◽  
Luisiane De Ávila Santana
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

O uso do laser não ablativo no tratamento do melasma tem sido abordado em diversos estudos, porém, não há consenso na literatura quanto aos parâmetros e feitos de intervenções baseadas neste recurso. O objetivo deste estudo foi identificar e descrever parâmetros e efeitos do laser não ablativo no tratamento de hiperpigmentação de pele (melasma). Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática da literatura baseada no Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A busca eletrônica compreendeu as seguintes bases de dados: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Science Direct e SciELO. Foram identificados inicialmente 641 documentos nas bases de dados eletrônicas, enquanto na busca manual 26 artigos foram encontrados, após leitura e análise 7 artigos foram selecionados. Foram analisados 7 artigos correspondentes as bases de dados PubMed e Science Direct, todos na língua inglesa e publicados a partir do ano de 2010. Apenas um estudo utilizou uma amostra maior que 30 indivíduos, os demais utilizaram em média 16 participantes, com predomínio do sexo feminino e classificação segundo Fitzpatrick entre III-V. O comprimento de onda variou entre 1064 nm a 1550 nm e a energia máxima não ultrapassou 4 J/cm². De acordo com as variáveis avaliadas, os protocolos testados demonstraram que o laser não ablativo foi ineficaz no tratamento de melasma facial, sobretudo após a interrupção da terapia.Palavras-chave: hiperpigmentação, laser não ablativo, fisioterapia dermato-funcional, revisão sistemática.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document