Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende Patientenratgeber
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Sports Medicine
Erschienen in:

30.09.2023 | Systematic Review

Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study

verfasst von: Madelin R. Siedler, Katie N. Harris, Christian Rodriguez, Megan H. Lewis, Priscila Semidey-Lamadrid, Matthew T. Stratton, Miguel Blacutt, Zeinab Hosseini, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Reem A. Mustafa, Shahnaz Sultan, Philipp Dahm, Rebecca L. Morgan, M. Hassan Murad

Erschienen in: Sports Medicine | Ausgabe 2/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Assessing certainty of evidence is a key element of any systematic review. The aim of this meta-epidemiology study was to understand the frequency and ways with which certainty of evidence is assessed in contemporary systematic reviews published in high-impact sports science journals.

Methods

We searched PubMed and relevant journal web sites from 1 August 2016 to 11 October 2022 for systematic reviews published in the top-ten highest-impact journals within the 2020 Journal Citation Report for the Sports Sciences category. Pairs of independent reviewers screened items using a priori established criteria.

Results

Of 1250 eligible documents, 258 (20.6%) assessed the certainty of evidence, defined as using two or more distinct domains to provide an overall rating of the trustworthiness of findings across studies. Nine methods were cited for assessing certainty, with the most common being the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (61.6%). The proportion of systematic reviews assessing certainty of evidence appeared to increase over the 6-year timeframe analyzed. Across all reviews analyzed, a large majority addressed the domains of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of the results. Other certainty domains including indirectness/applicability were less commonly assessed.

Discussion

Only one in five recent contemporary systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports science assessed certainty of evidence. Organizational and institutional education on methods for assessing evidence may help further increase uptake of these methods and improve both the quality and clinical impact of systematic reviews in the field.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019;70(1):747–70.CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
Paul M, Leibovici L. Systematic review or meta-analysis? Their place in the evidence hierarchy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):97–100.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA. 2014;312(6):603–5.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(1):59–67.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, Jaeschke R, Devereaux PJ, Prasad K, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users’ guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 2014;312(2):171–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002;47:1–11.
9.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ, et al. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372): n71.CrossRef
11.
Ardern CL, Buttner F, Andrade R, Weir A, Ashe MC, Holden S, et al. Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(4):175–95.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G, et al. AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182(18):E839–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust: National Academies Press; 2011.
14.
Siedler MR, Lamadrid P, Humphries MN, Mustafa RA, Falck-Ytter Y, Dahm P, et al. The quality of physical activity guidelines, but not the specificity of their recommendations, has improved over time: a systematic review and critical appraisal. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46(1):34–45.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Vancampfort D, Sweers K, Probst M, Mitchell AJ, Knapen J, De Hert M. Quality assessment of physical activity recommendations within clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardio-metabolic risk factors in people with schizophrenia. Community Ment Health J. 2011;47(6):703–10.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Armstrong JJ, Rodrigues IB, Wasiuta T, MacDermid JC. Quality assessment of osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines for physical activity and safe movement: an AGREE II appraisal. Arch Osteoporos. 2016;11:6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Halperin I, Vigotsky AD, Foster C, Pyne DB. Strengthening the practice of exercise and sport-science research. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(2):127–34.CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
20.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;18(343): d5928.CrossRef
22.
Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;28(366): l4898.CrossRef
23.
Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;12(355): i4919.CrossRef
24.
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
26.
27.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9.CrossRef
28.
Moher D. CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. JAMA. 1998;279(18):1489–91.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348(mar07 3):g1687-g.
30.
Schünemann H BJ, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE handbook; 2013.
31.
32.
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review G. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(12):1290–9.
33.
Conway A, Conway Z, Soalheira K, Sutherland J. High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(12):808–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Nasser SM, Cooke G, Kranzer K, Norris SL, Olliaro P, Ford N. Strength of recommendations in WHO guidelines using GRADE was associated with uptake in national policy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):703–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Schunemann HJ, Neumann I, Hultcrantz M, Brignardello-Petersen R, Zeng L, Murad MH, et al. GRADE guidance 35: update on rating imprecision for assessing contextualized certainty of evidence and making decisions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;150:225–42.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Werner SS, Binder N, Toews I, Schunemann HJ, Meerpohl JJ, Schwingshackl L. Use of GRADE in evidence syntheses published in high-impact-factor nutrition journals: A methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;135:54–69.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Gianola S, Bargeri S, Nembrini G, Varvello A, Lunny C, Castellini G. One-third of systematic reviews in rehabilitation applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate certainty of evidence: a meta-research study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;104(3):410–7.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Naude CE, Durao S, Harper A, Volmink J. Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2017;16(1):22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Kane RL, Butler M, Ng W. Examining the quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions: an analysis of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2016;6(5): e011051.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Betini M, Volpato ES, Anastacio GD, de Faria RT, El Dib R. Choosing the right journal for your systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2014;20(6):834–6.CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Ari MD, Iskander J, Araujo J, Casey C, Kools J, Chen B, et al. A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(12): e0244407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277–82.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(5):963–75.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP, Barnett LM, Okely AD. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents: review of associated health benefits. Sports Med. 2010;40(12):1019–35.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Brignardello-Petersen R, Mustafa RA, Siemieniuk RAC, Murad MH, Agoritsas T, Izcovich A, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH, GRADE Working Group. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:77–85.
47.
Pescatello LS, Hennessy EA, Katzmarzyk PT, Kraus WE, Fish AF, Craft LL, et al. Best practices for meta-reviews in physical activity and health research: insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report. J Phys Act Health. 2021;18(11):1437–45.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Wright JG, Einhorn TA, Heckman JD. Grades of recommendation. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1909–10.CrossRef
49.
Wright JG. Revised grades of recommendation for summaries or reviews of orthopaedic surgical studies. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2006;88(5):1161–2.CrossRef
50.
51.
Meeus M., Gebruers N. Health literacy: from reference to review. Leuven: Acco; 2016.
52.
World Health Organization. General Guidelines for Methodologies on Research and Evaluation of Traditional Medicine. Geneva; 2000.
Metadaten
Titel
Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study
verfasst von
Madelin R. Siedler
Katie N. Harris
Christian Rodriguez
Megan H. Lewis
Priscila Semidey-Lamadrid
Matthew T. Stratton
Miguel Blacutt
Zeinab Hosseini
Yngve Falck-Ytter
Reem A. Mustafa
Shahnaz Sultan
Philipp Dahm
Rebecca L. Morgan
M. Hassan Murad
Publikationsdatum
30.09.2023
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Sports Medicine / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01941-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2024

The Perils of Misinterpreting and Misusing “Publication Bias” in Meta-analyses: An Education Review on Funnel Plot-Based Methods

  • Open Access
  • Review Article

Response to Comment on “Influence of Resistance Training Proximity-to-Failure on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis”

  • Letter to the Editor

Women at Altitude: Sex-Related Physiological Responses to Exercise in Hypoxia

  • Open Access
  • Review Article

Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Impact of Sex and Training Status

  • Open Access
  • Systematic Review

Head Acceleration Events in Male Community Rugby Players: An Observational Cohort Study across Four Playing Grades, from Under-13 to Senior Men

  • Open Access
  • Original Research Article

Performance Benefits of Pre- and Per-cooling on Self-paced Versus Constant Workload Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Open Access
  • Systematic Review

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen. Zur Fortbildung und Wissenserweiterung, verfasst und geprüft von Expertinnen und Experten der Gesellschaft für Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie (AGA).


Jetzt entdecken!

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Was sich Menschen mit Frozen Shoulder wünschen

Die Capsulitis adhaesiva des Glenohumeralgelenks, auch als Frozen Shoulder bezeichnet, belastet die Betroffenen weit über die körperlichen Beschwerden hinaus, wie eine italienische Studie ergeben hat.

Restriktive Sauerstoffgabe ohne Vorteil bei schwerem Trauma

Ob schwer verletzte Personen besser restriktiv oder liberal mit Sauerstoff versorgt werden sollten, hat die Arbeitsgruppe der TRAUMOX2-Studie untersucht – mit klarem Ergebnis.

Hinweis auf Zusatznutzen der Anfallsprophylaxe mit Colchicin

Wenn Gichtkranke in den ersten Monaten einer harnsäuresenkenden Therapie eine Anfallsprophylaxe mit Colchicin erhalten, könnten sie davon doppelt profitieren: Ihr Risiko für kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen scheint ebenfalls gesenkt zu werden. 

Wenn orthopädische Patienten psychiatrische Hilfe brauchen

Auch in der orthopädischen Praxis ist man manchmal mit psychischen Problemen konfrontiert. Woran Sie erkennen können, ob Ihre Patientin oder Ihr Patient eigentlich die Hilfe einer anderen Fachdisziplin benötigt, hat ein Team aus Bologna zusammengefasst.

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise