Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications.

Ian Shrier, Franco M Impellizzeri, Steven D Stovitz

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Drowning in Evidence: The Meta-Analysis Boom and the Rigor It Demands.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2026
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

3 authors.

Ian ShrierCentre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, 3755 Cote Sainte Catherine Road, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. ian.shrier@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-9914-3498

Franco M ImpellizzeriSchool of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1703-2573

Steven D StovitzDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4168-9823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects.

Indexed as

Conflict of InterestMotivationSports MedicineHumansPeer Review, ResearchPeriodicals as TopicPublishing

Identifiers

PMID38714641

DOI10.1007/s40279-024-02037-w

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.