Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35979431›Full record

ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2022

Applied sports science and sports medicine in women's rugby: systematic scoping review and Delphi study to establish future research priorities.

Omar Heyward, Stacey Emmonds, Gregory Roe, Sean Scantlebury, Keith Stokes, Ben Jones

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Up for the tackle? The pelvic floor and rugby. A review.European journal of sport science · 2024
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Omar HeywardCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7390-6511
Stacey EmmondsCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Gregory RoeCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Sean ScantleburyCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Keith StokesRugby Football Union, Twickenham, UK.
Ben JonesCarnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4274-6236

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In part 1, the objective was to undertake a systematic scoping review of applied sports science and sports medicine in women's rugby, and in part 2 to develop a consensus statement on future research priorities. Design: In part 1, a systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost) was undertaken from the earliest records to January 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews, and the PRISMA extension protocols were followed. In part 2, 31 international experts in women's rugby (ie, elite players, sports scientists, medical clinicians, sports administrators) participated in a three-round Delphi consensus method. These experts reviewed the findings from part 1 and subsequently provided a list of priority research topics in women's rugby. Research topics were grouped into expert-based themes and expert-based subthemes via content analysis. Expert-based themes and expert-based subthemes were ranked from very low to very high research priority on a 1-5 Likert scale. Consensus was defined by ≥70% agreement. The median research priority agreement and IQR were calculated for each expert-based theme and subtheme. Data sources: PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and SPORTDiscus (EBSCOhost). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they investigated applied sports science or sports medicine in women's rugby. Results: In part 1, the systematic scoping review identified 123 studies, which were categorised into six sports science and sports medicine evidence-based themes: injury (n=48), physical performance (n=32), match characteristics (n=26), fatigue and recovery (n=6), nutrition (n=6), and psychology (n=5). In part 2, the Delphi method resulted in three expert-based themes achieving consensus on future research priority in women's rugby: injury (5.0 (1.0)), female health (4.0 (1.0)) and physical performance (4.0 (1.0)). Summary/Conclusion: This two-part systematic scoping review and Delphi consensus is the first study to summarise the applied sports science and sports medicine evidence base in women's rugby and establish future research priorities. The summary tables from part 1 provide valuable reference information for researchers and practitioners. The three expert-based themes that achieved consensus in part 2 (injury, female health and physical performance) provide clear direction and guidance on future research priorities in women's rugby. The findings of this two-part study facilitate efficient and coordinated use of scientific resources towards high-priority research themes relevant to a wide range of stakeholders in women's rugby.

Indexed as

femalerugbysportsports medicinewomen

Identifiers

PMID35979431
PMCPMC9310180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.