Cargando…

Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science

Most of the reviews carried out in sports science have used the general items suggested by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Due to the specific requirements of each knowledge area, several modifications of the PRISMA are necessary to optimize the process o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rico-González, Markel, Pino-Ortega, José, Clemente, Filipe Manuel, Arcos, Asier Los
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Institute of Sport in Warsaw 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35309539
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.106386
_version_ 1784669011782402048
author Rico-González, Markel
Pino-Ortega, José
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Arcos, Asier Los
author_facet Rico-González, Markel
Pino-Ortega, José
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Arcos, Asier Los
author_sort Rico-González, Markel
collection PubMed
description Most of the reviews carried out in sports science have used the general items suggested by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Due to the specific requirements of each knowledge area, several modifications of the PRISMA are necessary to optimize the process of the systematic reviews and, in consequence, the quality of the conclusions provided in this type of study. Therefore, this work aimed to adapt PRISMA to provide specific guidelines to carry out systematic reviews in sports science. The methodology criteria (search strategy, databases, and eligibility) and the results section (flow diagrams and study contents) were adapted based on previous studies, and several new considerations were added to design the new guidelines. We compiled 28 items suggested by sports science researchers and included two new items: (i) population/problem (i.e., age, level, and country) and (ii) the entire training process, which is monitored and compared between groups (e.g., total training load). To maximize the benefit of this document, we encourage people to read it in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. The main differences between PRISMA and the PRISMA adapted to sports science were related to registration, search strategy, flow diagrams, and results. Application of the new guidelines could improve the information provided to readers and make it easier to generalize and compare the results in sports science.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8919872
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Institute of Sport in Warsaw
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89198722022-03-18 Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science Rico-González, Markel Pino-Ortega, José Clemente, Filipe Manuel Arcos, Asier Los Biol Sport Review Paper Most of the reviews carried out in sports science have used the general items suggested by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Due to the specific requirements of each knowledge area, several modifications of the PRISMA are necessary to optimize the process of the systematic reviews and, in consequence, the quality of the conclusions provided in this type of study. Therefore, this work aimed to adapt PRISMA to provide specific guidelines to carry out systematic reviews in sports science. The methodology criteria (search strategy, databases, and eligibility) and the results section (flow diagrams and study contents) were adapted based on previous studies, and several new considerations were added to design the new guidelines. We compiled 28 items suggested by sports science researchers and included two new items: (i) population/problem (i.e., age, level, and country) and (ii) the entire training process, which is monitored and compared between groups (e.g., total training load). To maximize the benefit of this document, we encourage people to read it in conjunction with the PRISMA statement. The main differences between PRISMA and the PRISMA adapted to sports science were related to registration, search strategy, flow diagrams, and results. Application of the new guidelines could improve the information provided to readers and make it easier to generalize and compare the results in sports science. Institute of Sport in Warsaw 2021-07-01 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8919872/ /pubmed/35309539 http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.106386 Text en Copyright © Biology of Sport 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Paper
Rico-González, Markel
Pino-Ortega, José
Clemente, Filipe Manuel
Arcos, Asier Los
Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title_full Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title_fullStr Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title_full_unstemmed Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title_short Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
title_sort guidelines for performing systematic reviews in sports science
topic Review Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8919872/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35309539
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2022.106386
work_keys_str_mv AT ricogonzalezmarkel guidelinesforperformingsystematicreviewsinsportsscience
AT pinoortegajose guidelinesforperformingsystematicreviewsinsportsscience
AT clementefilipemanuel guidelinesforperformingsystematicreviewsinsportsscience
AT arcosasierlos guidelinesforperformingsystematicreviewsinsportsscience