Full text

Turn on search term navigation

© 2024 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Correspondence to Aamir Raoof Memon; [email protected] Systematic reviews that include meta-analysis, and in particular meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, with the exception of umbrella and rapid reviews,1 are at the top of hierarchy of evidence, as these studies apply the scientific method to identify high-quality evidence, such as randomised controlled trials, and synthesise this evidence via meta-analytical methods that afford greater statistical power than any one study alone.2 3 Subsequently, systematic reviews underscore meta-analyses that are commonly relied upon during the development of policy and clinical practice guidelines. Duplicate publications in systematic reviews The presence of multiple reports from one study impacts evidence synthesis and effect estimates.17 This often happens when resulting reports from the same study do not cite prior reports and/or clinical trial registry identifiers.18 19 The Cochrane Handbook provides guidance on this in the section 5.2.1 and suggests ways in which authors can identify when multiple reports emanate from one study, such as trial registration numbers, authors’ names, numbers of participants and baseline data.7 A related problem is the inclusion of participants from the same intervention (or control) group based on data from multiple reports of one study. Potential solutions to address this issue are available in the Cochrane Handbook in the section 23.3.4 and include combining groups to create a single pairwise comparison and selecting one pair of interventions and excluding the others.7 Once again, we contend considering these methods a priori and ensuring these are integrated into the synthesis component of any systematic review. [...]reviews should be prospectively registered (eg, PROSPERO) and should report the risk of bias assessment.20 However, many systematic reviews do not adhere to these reporting guidelines, despite commonly including a completed checklist as a supplement accompanying the final publication and/or review process.20 21 Specifically from our experience in the sports and exercise medicine field, common examples of PRISMA not being followed include, but are not restricted to: (a) providing list of excluded studies at full text with reasons; (b) providing access to the statistical code, raw tabulated data and extraction sheet such as on a data-sharing platform (eg, osf.io); (c) transparently reporting deviations to the a priori study protocol; (d) reporting the search strategy in full22 and (e) structuring the abstract in accordance with the relevant extensions of PRISMA statement (http://prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Abstracts).6 Including these elements not only facilitates the peer-review process insofar that reviewers are able to provide higher-level feedback and editors are able to reach a decision in a more timely manner, yet also conveys the methods and results of the systematic review in a more transparent and interpretable format to expected end users (eg, researchers, clinicians and policymakers). [...]we recommend authors: (a) familiarise themselves with not only the PRISMA checklist, but also the supporting documentation regarding its implementation,23 (b) design and draft the systematic review through the lens of the PRISMA checklist, rather than applying it post hoc, and (c) engage with the relevant extensions, such as that relevant to abstracts (http://prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Abstracts).6 Grey literature The term ‘grey literature’ is used to describe reports published outside of traditional commercial publishing, such as dissertations, preprints, conference abstracts and reports.7 This is an important step as part of secondary searches which helps reduce the risk of publication bias.

Details

Title
Common issues of systematic reviews in the sports and exercise medicine field
Author
Aamir Raoof Memon 1   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Owen, Patrick J 2   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Anderson, Nash 3   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Verhagen, Evert 4   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Mundell, Niamh L 5   VIAFID ORCID Logo  ; Belavy, Daniel L 6   VIAFID ORCID Logo 

 Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 
 Eastern Health Emergency Medicine Program, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 
 Tuggeranong Chiropractic Centre, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia 
 Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 
 Deakin University, Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 
 Department of Applied Health Sciences, Hochschule für Gesundheit Bochum, Bochum, Germany 
First page
e001784
Section
Editorial
Publication year
2024
Publication date
2024
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
e-ISSN
20557647
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
2916428161
Copyright
© 2024 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.