SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Self-Report Health Screening Tools in Female Athletes: A Systematic Review of Domain Coverage, Validation, and Use Across Participation Levels.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFemale athlete health encompasses multiple interconnected domains; however, the self-report screening tools used to assess these domains have not been comprehensively synthesised.
objectiveTo systematically identify self-report health screening tools used to assess female athlete health, map domain coverage, determine validation reporting, and describe application across participation levels.
methodsThis systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO ( CRD420251056910 ) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) were searched from inception to January 2026 using female health and screening-related terms. Methodological quality was appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute and National Institutes of Health tools, and findings were synthesised descriptively. Eligible, peer-reviewed studies reported the use, development or validation of self-report health screening tools assessing one or more domains relevant to female health applied in female athlete populations, spanning recreational through elite participation levels. All sports and activities were included. The search was restricted to English language with no date limits.
resultsIn total, 360 studies (1990-2026) representing 134,506 female participants spanning recreational to elite sport and 273 screening tools were included. Mental health (n = 77, 34.1%), disordered eating (n = 33, 14.6%) and body image (n = 30, 13.3%) predominated. Domains related to female health, including menstrual health, pelvic floor health, pregnancy/postpartum and breast health were comparatively underrepresented. Most studies reported tools were used for risk identification (n = 323, 80.3%). Validation reporting was inconsistent, with half (n = 180, 50%) reporting use of at least one validated tool. Tool use was concentrated in professional and elite sport, with limited inclusion of recreational, masters and disability athlete cohorts. Health literacy constructs were explicitly assessed in 12.5% of studies (n = 45).
conclusionsHealth screening in female athlete populations remains fragmented and uneven in domain coverage, with inconsistent validation reporting. Development of integrated, multi-domain and contextually inclusive screening frameworks is warranted.
Identifiers
42698044What 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.