SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2024
A literature review of biomarkers used for diagnosis of relative energy deficiency in sport.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Molecular Biomarkers of Training Responses: A Systems Framework for Exercise Adaptation and Athlete Monitoring.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Relative energy deficiency in sport: a cross-sectional study of nutritional, biochemical and hormonal profiles in Czech female endurance athletes at risk of low energy availability.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Weight cycling and relative energy deficiency in sport syndrome in an elite female muaythai athlete: a case study.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- How Attachment Styles Influence Emotional Distress and Psychiatric Symptoms Among Individuals With Schizophrenia: A Cross-Sectional Nursing Survey.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The review aims to summarize the markers used in diagnosing relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) and compare them with the REDs CAT2 score. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases during April 2023. The descriptors used were "athlete" AND "REDs," along with respective entry terms. The selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 recommendations, identifying 593 records, from which 13 studies were ultimately selected. Seventy-nine markers were identified and categorized into six groups: bone mineral density (BMD), metabolic resting rate, blood biomarkers, anthropometrics, nutritional intake, and performance parameters. The most frequently utilized biomarkers included BMD, anthropometric parameters (e.g., body mass index, body mass, and fat mass), and the triiodothyronine (T3) concentration. Results: According to the REDs CAT2 pointed indicators, the biomarkers varied among the studies, while 7 out of the 13 included studies achieved a ≥60% agreement rate with this tool. The prevalence of low energy availability, an etiological factor in the development of REDs, was detected in 4 out of 13 studies, with an average of 39.5%. Conclusion: In conclusion, this review highlights the most commonly used markers in diagnosing REDs, such as BMD, anthropometric parameters, and T3 hormone concentration. Due to the current inconsistencies, standardizing diagnostic methodologies is crucial for future research. By focusing on widely used markers, this review aids future research planning and result interpretation and points out the ongoing need for methodological consistency in evolving diagnostic tools. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022320007).
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.