Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35309539›Full record

ReviewBiology of sport2022

Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science.

Markel Rico-González, José Pino-Ortega, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Asier Los Arcos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biology of sport, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 25 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Markel Rico-GonzálezDepartment of Physical Education and Sport, University of the Basque Country, UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
José Pino-OrtegaDepartment of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Science, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Filipe Manuel ClementeEscola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun'Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.
Asier Los ArcosSociety, Sports and Physical Exercise Research Group (GIKAFIT). Department of Physical Education and Sport. Faculty of Education and Sport. University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain.
University of the Basque Country · ESInstituto de Telecomunicações · PTUniversidad de Murcia · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most of the reviews carried out in sports science have used the general items suggested by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Due to the specific requirements of each knowledge area, several modifications of the PRISMA are necessary to optimize the process of the systematic reviews and, in consequence, the quality of the conclusions provided in this type of study. Therefore, this work aimed to adapt PRISMA to provide specific guidelines to carry out systematic reviews in sports science. The methodology criteria (search strategy, databases, and eligibility) and the results section (flow diagrams and study contents) were adapted based on previous studies, and several new considerations were added to design the new guidelines. We compiled 28 items suggested by sports science researchers and included two new items: (i) population/problem (i.e., age, level, and country) and (ii) the entire training process, which is monitored and compared between groups (e.g., total training load). To maximize the benefit of this document, we encourage people to read it in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. The main differences between PRISMA and the PRISMA adapted to sports science were related to registration, search strategy, flow diagrams, and results. Application of the new guidelines could improve the information provided to readers and make it easier to generalize and compare the results in sports science.

Indexed as

Evaluating sports researchQualityReporting guidelinesResearch methodologySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35309539
PMCPMC8919872
OpenAlexW3188276075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.