ArticleSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2010
Nullius in verba: a call for the incorporation of evidence-based practice into the discipline of exercise science.
Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Personalized versus Standardized Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Training on Health-Related Outcomes and Rate of Responders.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2024Trial
- A PubMed search filter for efficiently retrieving exercise training studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Knowledge in Motion: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence-Based Human Kinetics.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Bridging the gap: Evidence-based practice guidelines for sports nutritionists.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
- The prevalence of adverse cardiometabolic responses to exercise training with evidence-based practice is low.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a concept that was popularized in the early 1990s by several physicians who recognized that medical practice should be based on the best and most current available evidence. Although this concept seems self-evident, much of medical practice was based on outdated textbooks and oral tradition passed down in medical school. Currently, exercise science is in a similar situation. Due to a lack of regulation within the exercise community, the discipline of exercise science is particularly prone to bias and misinformation, as evidenced by the plethora of available programmes with efficacy supported by anecdote alone. In this review, we provide a description of the five steps in EBP: (i) develop a question; (ii) find evidence; (iii) evaluate the evidence; (iv) incorporate evidence into practice; and (v) re-evaluate the evidence. Although objections have been raised to the EBP process, we believe that its incorporation into exercise science will improve the credibility of our discipline and will keep exercise practitioners and academics on the cutting edge of the most current research findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.