Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40188235›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine - open2025

Pre-Participation Evaluation of Recreational and Competitive Athletes - A Systematic Review of Guidelines and Consensus Statements.

Alina Weise, Nadja Könsgen, Christine Joisten, Fabian Schlumberger, Anja Hirschmüller, Jessica Breuing, Käthe Gooßen

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. An International Physical Exercise Screening Questionnaire (IPESQ).International journal of emergency medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

7 authors.

Alina WeiseWitten/Herdecke University, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Cologne, Germany. alina.weise@uni-wh.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4563-5782
Nadja KönsgenWitten/Herdecke University, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5387-7119
Christine JoistenDepartment for Physical Activity in Public Health, Institute of Movement and Neurosciences, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2455-8901
Fabian SchlumbergerWitten/Herdecke University, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Cologne, Germany.
Anja HirschmüllerMedical Center, Departement of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jessica BreuingWitten/Herdecke University, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-6464
Käthe GooßenWitten/Herdecke University, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1436-1144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPre-participation evaluation (PPE) aims to support safe participation in sports. The goal of this systematic review was to aggregate evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the PPE of recreational or competitive athletes as preparation for developing a German guideline on this subject.

methodsFive databases, including MEDLINE, were searched in August 2022, complemented by searches on the websites of relevant guideline organisations and specialty medical associations and citation screening. We included guidelines/consensus statements with recommendations for PPE of adult recreational athletes or competitive athletes of any age, excluding those with certain chronic illnesses. We extracted and synthesised data in a structured manner and appraised quality using selected domains of the AGREE-II tool.

resultsFrom the 6611 records found, we included 35 documents. Overall, the quality of the included documents was low. Seven documents (20%) made recommendations on the entire PPE process, while the remainder focussed on cardiovascular screening (16/35, 45.7%) or other topics. We extracted 305 recommendations. Of these, 11.8% (36/305) applied to recreational athletes and 88.2% (269/305) applied to athletes in organised or competitive sports. A total of 12.8% (39/305) of recommendations were directly linked to evidence from primary studies.

conclusionMany recommendations exist for PPE, but only a few are evidence based. The lack of primary studies evaluating the effects of screening on health outcomes may have led to this lack of evidence-based guidelines and contributed to poor rigour in guideline development. Future guidelines/consensus statements require a more robust evidence base, and reporting should improve. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022355112.

Indexed as

ConsensusGuidelinePhysical activityPre-participation examinationPre-participation screeningRecommendationsSports medical screening

Identifiers

PMID40188235
PMCPMC11972279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.