ReviewBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2025
Methodological quality and reporting using time-to-event data in sports science and medicine: a scoping review.
Review in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Time-to-event is a powerful statistical approach increasingly used in sports science and medicine to examine time-to-event outcomes such as time to sports injury occurrence, career duration and recovery processes. This scoping review aims to systematically assess the methodological quality and reporting practices of studies published within the sports science and medicine domain using time-to-event techniques (eg, Cox regression). We conducted a scoping review of 138 original studies published between 2013 and 2023. Studies were identified from PubMed and Web of Science, and methodological reporting was evaluated using the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature guidelines, focusing on statistical methods, model assumptions, censoring and reporting of survival measures. Reporting deficiencies were widespread. Over 90% of studies did not report the number of individuals at risk at each time point, 75% did not adequately address assumptions underlying survival models and 62% did not clearly define the purpose of the analysis. Only 20% reported median survival times when pertinent, and reporting of HRs and reasons for censoring was often incomplete. Slight improvements were observed in studies published after 2020, but major gaps remain. These findings highlight the need for improved methodological transparency, adherence to reporting standards and comprehensive statistical education. Enhancing these aspects will strengthen the reproducibility, interpretability and practical relevance of time-to-event studies in sports science and medicine.
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.