Search

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.

Introduction Systematic reviews fulfil a vital role in modern medicine.1 However, the results of systematic reviews are only as valid as the studies they include.2 Pooling flawed, or biased, results from different studies can compromise the credibility of systematic review findings. Bias is a systematic deviation from the truth in the results of a research study that

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous taxonomy of groin injuries in athletes adds confusion to this complicated area. AIM: The 'Doha agreement meeting on terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes' was convened to attempt to resolve this problem. Our aim was to agree on a standard terminology, along with accompanying definitions. METHODS: A one-day agreement meeting was held on 4 November 2014. Twenty-four international experts from 14 different countries participated. Systematic reviews were performed to give an up-to-date synthesis of the current evidence on major topics concerning groin pain in athletes. All members participated in a Delphi questionnaire prior to the meeting. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the following terminology. The classification system has three major subheadings of groin pain in athletes: 1. Defined clinical entities for groin pain: Adductor-related, iliopsoas-related, inguinal-related and pubic-related groin pain. 2. Hip-related groin pain. 3. Other causes of groin pain in athletes. The definitions are included in this paper. CONCLUSIONS: The Doha agreement meeting on terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes reached a consensus on a clinically based taxonomy using three major categories. These definitions and terminology are based on history and physical examination to categorise athletes, making it simple and suitable for both clinical practice and research.

Background Groin pain in athletes occurs frequently and can be difficult to treat, which may partly be due to the lack of agreement on diagnostic terminology. Objective To perform a short Delphi survey on terminology agreement for groin pain in athletes by a group of experts. Methods A selected number of experts were invited to participate in a Delphi questionnaire. The study coordinator sent a questionnaire, which consisted of demographic questions and two 'real-life' case reports of athletes with groin pain. The experts were asked to complete the questionnaire and to provide the most likely diagnosis for each case. Questionnaire responses were analysed by an independent researcher. The Cohen's. statistic was used to evaluate the level of agreement between the diagnostic terms provided by the experts. Results Twenty-three experts participated (96% of those invited). For case 1, experts provided 9 different terms to describe the most likely diagnosis; for case 2, 11 different terms were provided to describe the most likely diagnosis. With respect to the terms provided for the most likely diagnosis, the Cohen's. was 0.06 and 0.002 for case 1 and 2, respectively. This heterogeneous taxonomy reflects only a slight agreement between the various diagnostic terms provided by the selected experts. Conclusions This short Delphi survey of two 'typical, straightforward' cases demonstrated major inconsistencies in the diagnostic terminology used by experts for groin pain in athletes. These results underscore the need for consensus on definitions and terminology on groin pain in athletes.

Background Heterogeneous taxonomy of groin injuries in athletes adds confusion to this complicated area. Aim The 'Doha agreement meeting on terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes' was convened to attempt to resolve this problem. Our aim was to agree on a standard terminology, along with accompanying definitions. Methods A one-day agreement meeting was held on 4 November 2014. Twenty-four international experts from 14 different countries participated. Systematic reviews were performed to give an up-to-date synthesis of the current evidence on major topics concerning groin pain in athletes. All members participated in a Delphi questionnaire prior to the meeting. Results Unanimous agreement was reached on the following terminology. The classification system has three major subheadings of groin pain in athletes: 1. Defined clinical entities for groin pain: Adductor-related, iliopsoas-related, inguinal-related and pubic-related groin pain. 2. Hip-related groin pain. 3. Other causes of groin pain in athletes. The definitions are included in this paper. Conclusions The Doha agreement meeting on terminology and definitions in groin pain in athletes reached a consensus on a clinically based taxonomy using three major categories. These definitions and terminology are based on history and physical examination to categorise athletes, making it simple and suitable for both clinical practice and research.

Item does not contain fulltext, While research on chronic ankle instability (CAI) and awareness of its impact on society and health care systems has grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant/patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalise this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient/participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI with justifications using the best available evidence. The International Ankle Consortium provides this position paper to present and discuss an endorsed set of selection criteria for patients with CAI based on the best available evidence to be used in future research and study designs. These recommendations will enhance the validity of research conducted in this clinical population with the end goal of bringing the research evidence to the clinician and patient.

Item does not contain fulltext, The International Ankle Consortium is an international community of researchers and clinicians whose primary scholastic purpose is to promote scholarship and dissemination of research-informed knowledge related to pathologies of the ankle complex. The constituents of the International Ankle Consortium and other similar organizations have yet to properly define the clinical phenomenon known as chronic ankle instability (CAI) and its related characteristics for consistent patient recruitment and advancement of research in this area. Although research on CAI and awareness of its impact on society and healthcare systems have grown substantially in the last 2 decades, the inconsistency in participant/patient selection criteria across studies presents a potential obstacle to addressing the problem properly. This major gap within the literature limits the ability to generalize this evidence to the target patient population. Therefore, there is a need to provide standards for patient/participant selection criteria in research focused on CAI, with justifications using the best available evidence.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(8):585-591. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.0303.