Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

Abstract Background Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increase...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Nórton Luís Oliveira, Cíntia Ehlers Botton, Angélica Trevisan De Nardi, Daniel Umpierre
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	BMC 2021
Materias:	Systematic reviews with meta-analysis Methodological quality Reporting standards Exercise sciences Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/0353f99c14064b7ba33797aa69a86cee
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:0353f99c14064b7ba33797aa69a86cee
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:0353f99c14064b7ba33797aa69a86cee2021-12-05T12:05:49ZMethodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)10.1186/s13643-021-01845-92046-4053https://doaj.org/article/0353f99c14064b7ba33797aa69a86cee2021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01845-9https://doaj.org/toc/2046-4053Abstract Background Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. Methods Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Results Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field.Nórton Luís OliveiraCíntia Ehlers BottonAngélica Trevisan De NardiDaniel UmpierreBMCarticleSystematic reviews with meta-analysisMethodological qualityReporting standardsExercise sciencesMedicineRENSystematic Reviews, Vol 10, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Systematic reviews with meta-analysis Methodological quality Reporting standards Exercise sciences Medicine R
spellingShingle	Systematic reviews with meta-analysis Methodological quality Reporting standards Exercise sciences Medicine R Nórton Luís Oliveira Cíntia Ehlers Botton Angélica Trevisan De Nardi Daniel Umpierre Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
description	Abstract Background Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. Methods Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Results Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field.
format	article
author	Nórton Luís Oliveira Cíntia Ehlers Botton Angélica Trevisan De Nardi Daniel Umpierre
author_facet	Nórton Luís Oliveira Cíntia Ehlers Botton Angélica Trevisan De Nardi Daniel Umpierre
author_sort	Nórton Luís Oliveira
title	Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
title_short	Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
title_full	Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
title_fullStr	Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
title_full_unstemmed	Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)
title_sort	methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the strengthening the evidence in exercise sciences initiative (sees initiative)
publisher	BMC
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/0353f99c14064b7ba33797aa69a86cee
work_keys_str_mv	AT nortonluisoliveira methodologicalqualityandreportingstandardsinsystematicreviewswithmetaanalysisofphysicalactivitystudiesareportfromthestrengtheningtheevidenceinexercisesciencesinitiativeseesinitiative AT cintiaehlersbotton methodologicalqualityandreportingstandardsinsystematicreviewswithmetaanalysisofphysicalactivitystudiesareportfromthestrengtheningtheevidenceinexercisesciencesinitiativeseesinitiative AT angelicatrevisandenardi methodologicalqualityandreportingstandardsinsystematicreviewswithmetaanalysisofphysicalactivitystudiesareportfromthestrengtheningtheevidenceinexercisesciencesinitiativeseesinitiative AT danielumpierre methodologicalqualityandreportingstandardsinsystematicreviewswithmetaanalysisofphysicalactivitystudiesareportfromthestrengtheningtheevidenceinexercisesciencesinitiativeseesinitiative
_version_	1718372234661199872

Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

Ejemplares similares