Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740732›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026

Comparing and Assessing Clinical Practice Guidelines and Consensus Statements for Healthy Athletes: A Scoping Review Protocol.

Samyan Shahid, Andres Estupiñán-Bohórquez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Samyan ShahidFaculty of Sciences, McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8448-8363
Andres Estupiñán-BohórquezInstitute of Medical Research, School of Medicine University of Antioquia Medellín Antioquia Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Healthy athletes have unique physiological, psychological, and interpersonal needs that necessitate individualized prevention and management strategies. As such, this comprehensive protocol has been created to illustrate the scope, quality and coverage of these clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements among this specific population. Methods and Analysis: Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar and any grey literature within official international organizations. Eligible publications will include CPGs and consensus statements that are aimed towards healthy athletes, published in English or Spanish since 2000. The AGREE II instrument will be applied to assess the quality of the guidelines by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. We will use descriptive statistics to summarize the main characteristics of the guidelines. Discussion: This scoping review seeks towards providing an in-depth analysis on the mapping, explaining, and evaluating of the available CPGs and consensus statements of the population of healthy athletes. Moreover, it will identify thematic trends, methodological strengths, and potential evidence gaps that currently exist. Fundamentally, the results will provide valuable information towards development of guidelines, standardization efforts, and evidence-based practice in the future within the field of sports medicine.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelinesconsensus statementshealthy athletesmethodological qualitysports medicine

Identifiers

PMID42740732
PMCPMC13563321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.