ArticleSports medicine international open2026
Beyond the
Article in Sports medicine international open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statistical inference underpins the credibility of sports science research, yet concerns remain regarding the rigor of statistical reporting and analysis. This study assessed the adequacy of statistical practices in sports science research according to established methodological guidelines. A total of 167 original studies published in 2020 across 15 sports science journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (Q1-Q3) were systematically reviewed. Up to 50 studies per journal were randomly selected, and data regarding study characteristics and statistical methods were extracted. Statistical adequacy was classified according to predefined criteria involving reporting omissions and/or statistical misapplications. Overall, 87.4% of studies presented at least one inadequacy. The most frequent reporting omissions involved failure to report assumptions such as normality, homogeneity of variances, and sphericity when required. Common statistical misapplications included the use of inappropriate dependent variables and incorrect treatment of independent observations as dependent measures. Deficiencies were identified across all journal quartiles, with no association between adequacy and journal ranking (
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.