Search

Objective: To review the literature to establish overall, match and training injury incidence rates (IIRs) in senior (≥18 years of age) women's football (amateur club, elite club and international)., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of overall, match and training IIRs in senior women's football, stratified by injury location, type and severity., Data Sources: MEDLINE via PubMed; EMBASE via Ovid; CINAHL via EBSCO and Web of Science were searched from earliest record to July 2021., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: (1) football players participating in a senior women's football league (amateur club or elite club) or a senior women's international football tournament; (2) the study had to report IIRs or provide sufficient data from which this outcome metric could be calculated through standardised equations; (3) a full-text article published in a peer-reviewed journal before July 2021; (4) a prospective injury surveillance study and (5) case reports on single teams were ineligible., Results: 17 articles met the inclusion criteria; amateur club (n=2), elite club (n=10), international (n=5). Overall, match and training 'time-loss' IIRs are similar between senior women's elite club football and international football. 'Time-loss' training IIRs in senior women's elite club football and international football are approximately 6-7 times lower than their equivalent match IIRs. Overall 'time-loss' IIRs stratified by injury type in women's elite club football were 2.70/1000 hours (95% CI 1.12 to 6.50) for muscle and tendon, 2.62/1000 hours (95% CI 1.26 to 5.46) for joint and ligaments, and 0.76/1000 hours (95% CI 0.55 to 1.03) for contusions. Due to the differences in injury definitions, it was not possible to aggregate IIRs for amateur club football., Conclusion: Lower limb injuries incurred during matches are a substantial problem in senior women's football. The prevention of lower limb joint, ligament, muscle and tendon injuries should be a central focus of injury prevention interventions in senior women's amateur club, elite club and international football., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020162895., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RA, MCA, FB, MC, SH, FMI, SM, MSR, GS, BV, JLW, MW and AAW declare they have no competing interests. CLA was a Deputy Editor (Systematic Reviews) for BJSM from 2016 to 2018. ED, HPD and AW are associate editors for BJSM. MCA was a member of the BJSM editorial board from 2008 to 2020. KMK was Editor-in-Chief of BJSM from 2008 to 2020. He holds no position with the BJSM or the BMJ Group at present (September 2021). DM is Chair of the PRISMA group, led the PRISMA 2009 statement and co-led the PRISMA 2020 statement. MJP co-led the PRISMA 2020 statement. ES was editor of BJSM from 2017 to 2020, and editor-in-chief of BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine from 2019 to 2020. He is a senior adviser to BJSM (September 2021)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Questionable research practices (QRPs) are intentional and unintentional practices that can occur when designing, conducting, analysing, and reporting research, producing biased study results. Sport and exercise medicine (SEM) research is vulnerable to the same QRPs that pervade the biomedical and psychological sciences, producing false-positive results and inflated effect sizes. Approximately 90% of biomedical research reports supported study hypotheses, provoking suspicion about the field-wide presence of systematic biases to facilitate study findings that confirm researchers' expectations. In this education review, we introduce three common QRPs (ie, HARKing , P-hacking and Cherry-picking ), perform a cross-sectional study to assess the proportion of original SEM research that reports supported study hypotheses, and draw attention to existing solutions and resources to overcome QRPs that manifest in exploratory research. We hypothesised that ≥ 85% of original SEM research studies would report supported study hypotheses. Two independent assessors systematically identified, screened, included, and extracted study data from original research articles published between 1 January 2019 and 31 May 2019 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Sports Medicine, the American Journal of Sports Medicine, and the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy We extracted data relating to whether studies reported that the primary hypothesis was supported or rejected by the results. Study hypotheses, methodologies, and analysis plans were preregistered at the Open Science Framework. One hundred and twenty-nine original research studies reported at least one study hypothesis, of which 106 (82.2%) reported hypotheses that were supported by study results. Of 106 studies reporting that primary hypotheses were supported by study results, 75 (70.8%) studies reported that the primary hypothesis was fully supported by study results. The primary study hypothesis was partially supported by study results in 28 (26.4%) studies. We detail open science practices and resources that aim to safe-guard against QRPs that bely the credibility and replicability of original research findings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To determine whether individuals who sustained a sports concussion would exhibit persistent impairments in gait and quiet standing compared to non-injured controls during a dual-task assessment ., Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD)., Data Sources: The search strategy was applied across seven electronic bibliographic and grey literature databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDISCUS, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and Web of Science, from database inception until June 2017., Eligibility Criteria for Study Selection: Studies were included if; individuals with a sports concussion and non-injured controls were included as participants; a steady-state walking or static postural balance task was used as the primary motor task; dual-task performance was assessed with the addition of a secondary cognitive task; spatiotemporal, kinematic or kinetic outcome variables were reported, and; included studies comprised an observational study design with case-control matching., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Our review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses-IPD Statement. We implemented the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomised Studies to undertake an outcome-level risk of bias assessment using a domain-based tool. Study-level data were synthesised in one of three tiers depending on the availability and quality of data: (1) homogeneous IPD; (2) heterogeneous IPD and (3) aggregate data for inclusion in a descriptive synthesis. IPD were aggregated using a 'one-stage', random-effects model., Results: 26 studies were included. IPD were available for 20 included studies. Consistently high and unclear risk of bias was identified for selection, detection, attrition, and reporting biases across studies. Individuals with a recent sports concussion walked with slower average walking speed (χ 2 =51.7; df=4; p<0.001; mean difference=0.06 m/s; 95% CI: 0.004 to 0.11) and greater frontal plane centre of mass displacement (χ 2 =10.3; df=4; p=0.036; mean difference -0.0039 m; 95% CI: -0.0075 to -0.0004) than controls when evaluated using a dual-task assessment up to 2 months following concussion., Summary/conclusions: Our IPD evidence synthesis identifies that, when evaluated using a dual-task assessment, individuals who had incurred a sports concussion exhibited impairments in gait that persisted beyond reported standard clinical recovery timelines of 7-10 days. Dual-task assessment (with motion capture) may be a useful clinical assessment to evaluate recovery after sports concussion., Protocol Pre-Registration: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO CRD42017064861., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CLA and ED are editorial board members of the British Journal of Sports Medicine., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)