- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Intervention not described / defined
- If exercise is medicine, why don't we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease
| Ref ID | 870 |
| First Author | H.J. Hansford |
| Journal | BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/56/12/692 |
| Keywords |
Pre-specification Disclosure General medical Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
Methods not described to enable replication Intervention not described / defined Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 28 |
| Summary of Findings | From 28 systematic reviews of exercise interventions indexed on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021.The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. The CERT items for "Description of each exercise to enable replication" (median=23%, IQR 44) and "Detailed description of the exercise intervention" (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Eight (28.5%) of the reviews were rated as critically low quality. The most common methodological shortcomings reporting sources of funding of included studies where 100% of the reviews did not report the item sufficiently, and the rationale for selection of study designs, where 79% did not report the item sufficiently. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |