ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Meta-analyses in sport and exercise science: sometimes the right tool at the wrong time?
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analysis is widely regarded as a high-level form of evidence in scientific research, particularly in the medical and life sciences. In sport and exercise science, the number of published meta-analyses has increased rapidly in recent years. This expansion raises important questions about when quantitative synthesis is appropriate and when meta-analysis may become the right tool at the wrong time. While meta-analysis offers a powerful tool for synthesizing data from multiple studies, it is crucial to apply appropriate methodology to ensure the validity of results.
objectiveThe objective of this commentary is to clarify when meta-analysis is an appropriate method and when it risks providing misleading numerical precision, by critically discussing common methodological and interpretive pitfalls in sport and exercise science. APPROACH AND
resultsIt therefore examines common pitfalls in the execution and interpretation using exemplary meta-analyses published in sport and exercise science, focusing on issues such as clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the selection of appropriate statistical models, and the challenges posed by methodological differences across studies. Clinical heterogeneity, including variations in study populations, interventions, and outcomes, is particularly problematic and requires careful consideration when defining inclusion and exclusion criteria. Furthermore, statistical heterogeneity, which refers to the variability in effect sizes across studies, necessitates the use of random-effects models and sensitivity analyses to account for the diversity of included studies. The choice of statistical methods and the potential impact of outliers can significantly influence meta-analytic conclusions, highlighting the need for rigorous analytical approaches. This commentary also emphasizes that meta-analysis should not always be the default method for synthesizing evidence, particularly when studies are excessively heterogeneous or of low quality. Rather than blindly aggregating data, researchers must critically assess whether a meta-analysis is warranted and if the findings can be meaningfully interpreted.
conclusionIn conclusion, while meta-analysis is a valuable tool, its results should be carefully framed within the context of the studies included, acknowledging potential limitations and avoiding over-reliance on aggregated data.
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.