Journal
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages 175-195Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2021-103987
Keywords
meta-analysis; evaluation; implementation; methodology
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a common problem across various fields, including sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science. The lack of implementation guidance for these specific fields has led to the development of the PERSiST guidance, which aims to improve transparency and reporting quality for systematic reviews and assist journal editors and peer reviewers in assessing the quality of systematic review reporting.
Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available