ReviewEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
We need article reporting standards for quantitative research in sport and exercise science: an educational narrative review.
Review in European journal of applied physiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent decades, there has been a substantial increase in the number of published studies across numerous scientific disciplines, including the sport and exercise sciences. However, it has been argued that this increase in quantity has, unfortunately, been accompanied by concerns regarding the quality of study design, methodological transparency, and results reporting. To address these pitfalls, several scientific communities, including the American Psychological Association (APA) Journal Article Reporting Standard (JARS) Working Group and numerous biostatisticians, have developed checklists and guidelines to improve reporting quality and ensure that scientific knowledge is accessible, interpretable, and useful to practitioners and clinicians. In the present review, databases for existing guidelines were screened to synthesize current reporting standards and provide an overview of the guidance that could be applied within the sport and exercise sciences. Although numerous adjacent disciplines have produced detailed guidelines, in some cases through dedicated reporting-standard task forces and working groups, no comprehensive and institionally-anchored guidelines dedicated to sport or exercise sciences were identified among the > 700 guidelines listed by the EQUATOR Network. Similarly, no reporting-standard working group, discipline-specific quality checklist, or globally accepted and implemented reporting standard appears to exist through major international organizations such as the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or the European College of Sport Science (ECSS). The present review highlights an urgent need to form an interdisciplinary working group to close this important gap in the literature and develop consensus guidelines for reporting research methodologies in the sport and exercise sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42870053What 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.