Search

This registration is to time-stamp the publication of our protocol on 25 June 2022. We will undertake a review to explore divergent studies from two authors, and further investigate studies from this research team to better understand the clinical and research methods undertaken. The protocol file outlines the complete methods for the study.

1. To determine LBM changes with creatine supplementation and RT. 2. To determine the individual effects of sex, and training status on this outcome. 3. To determine the effects of training volume on the outcome. 4. To develop evidence-based conclusions regarding the effects of creatine supplementation and RT on LBM.

This project aims to determine the comparative effectiveness of medicines for acute low back pain using component network meta-analysis.

The aim of this paper is to systematically review the literature pertaining to body composition changes in response to RT in people after a cancer diagnosis.

This is a registration of the methods to be used in a Delphi study to reach a consensus based set of outcomes for studies of exercise-induced hypoalgesia. Data collection for this project has not started at the time of this registration.

Transparency is an ideal shared by the scientific community (Munafò et al. 2017). Transparency takes several forms, including accurate reporting of work, providing access to raw data and analytic code (Vickers 2006) and documenting conflicts of interest. Such practices help to ensure science is a self-correcting process and maintain credibility in the scientific community. This credibility has been recently questioned in some respects (Ioannidis et al. 2014; Young, Ioannidis & Al-Ubaydli 2008), following low rates of reproduction and replication of published research findings (Camerer et al. 2018; Landis et al. 2012; Vickers 2006). Open science practices aim to make research materials and results as transparent and openly accessible as possible. The term ‘open science’ is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of practices such as open access publication, protocol pre-registration and sharing data and code. Researchers are encouraged to engage with transparent and open research practices (Munafò et al. 2017; Nosek et al. 2015), however, recent reviews of medical research suggest there is an overall low-level of contemporary engagement with these practices (Alsheikh-Ali et al. 2011; Cashin et al. 2020; Nutu et al. 2019; Wallach, Boyack & Ioannidis 2018). The reasons for this are not fully understood; although, a key relationship is likely that between scientists’ ideals and the incentive milieu within which they are immersed (Ioannidis 2005, 2015; Munafò et al. 2017; Smaldino & McElreath 2016). Incentives to engage with transparent and open practices might be broadly construed as ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’. Exemplar bottom-up incentives are support from like-minded peers and the innate desire of scientists to actualise their ideals. Whereas, exemplar top-down incentives are the requirements of scientific journals and institutions, expressed through policy and procedure. The University of New South Wales (UNSW) considers transparency a hallmark of responsible conduct of research (UNSW Council 2019), and incentivises transparent practice through policies (e.g. Code of Conduct for Research), training programs (e.g. post-graduate research integrity training module) and services (e.g. UNSWorks). However, to best knowledge, there is no systematic description of the engagement that UNSW researchers have with transparent and open research practices. The aim of this study is to evaluate the engagement with transparent and open research practices by scientists at the UNSW School of Medical Sciences (SOMS).

This study has the objective to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of muscle relaxant medicines for the treatment of non-specific low back pain. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

This project is a systematic review and network meta-analysis examining analgesic medicines for adults with acute low back pain.

This protocol describes a project to evaluate the feasibility of an audit and feedback intervention designed to facilitate sports science journal policy change towards greater promotion of transparency and openness practices

Pain is common in childhood and may present subsequent to an injury or procedure, as a consequence of disease, or without any identifiable cause. Many interventions for children have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and pain-related outcomes (Birnie et al. 2018; Fisher et al. 2018; Hechler et al. 2015). However, demonstrating an effect alone does not explain how the intervention works. We need to define not only that these intervention work for children, but also how and why they work. We can do so by identifying mechanisms of therapeutic interventions (Kazdin & Nock 2003; Weersing & Weisz 2002), often referred to as ‘mediators’. Testing mediators can contribute to our knowledge about how treatments work (e.g. if a mediator is significant), how treatments do not work (e.g., if a mediator is not significant) and which mechanisms are most important (e.g. comparing mediators). This knowledge can help determine key targets for future interventions. Extant systematic reviews have synthesised mediators of paediatric interventions aimed at changing physical activity levels (Brown et al. 2013; Lubans, Foster & Biddle 2008), dietary behaviour (Cerin, Barnett & Baranowski 2009) and anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour (Weersing & Weisz 2002). For adult pain, systematic reviews have explored mediators of interventions for musculoskeletal pain (Mansell, Kamper & Kent 2013) and back pain (Lee et al. 2016). However, there is no systematic review considering potential mediators of interventions for children with pain. Therefore, evidence on mediators that may explain how interventions lead to changes in pain-related outcomes in children is not available.

A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating whether exercise effects pain self-efficacy in adults with non-specific chronic low back pain.

Lack of efficacy and the presence of side effects of commons medications for chronic pain lead to the development of new analgesics with novel molecular mechanisms such as NGF inhibitors. The expectation is that anti-NGF medicines target a novel mechanism in the periphery of the nervous system in a different way than any other analgesics and have a reduced risk of addiction, misuse or dependence. Anti-NGF medicines have​ not received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but recently the agency accepted regulatory submission for Tanezumab to treat patients with osteoarthritis (https://investor.lilly.com/node/42791/pdf). The last systematic review with a meta-analysis that investigated the effect of anti-NGF medicines for low back pain was published in 2014. Some randomized controlled trials with a large number of participants have been conducted since that time. This systematic review will synthesize the effect and safety of anti-NGF medicines in patients with low back pain.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates whether there are differences between males and females in changes to muscular strength and muscle size following resistance training interventions.

Protocol for systematic review.

Systematic Review investigating efficacy and safety of isometric exercise to lower blood pressure

A systematic review and network meta-analysis examining the effect of exercise modalities on C-reactive protein in cancer surivors.

Protocol for a cross-sectional study using benefit-harm trade-off and discrete choice experiment to determine the smallest worthwhile effect for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute low back pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and exercise for chronic low back pain