| 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 |
• Non-Cochrane reviews • Disclosure • Pre-specification • General medical • Low reporting quality • Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 28 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 4083 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |