Critical assessment of systematic reviews on the effects of velocity-based resistance training on athletic performance: a systematic review
Keywords:
velocity-based resistance training, quality assessment, sports performance, systematic reviewAbstract
Objective: To synthesize and critically appraise systematic reviews (SRs) that investigated the effect of velocity-based resistance training (VB-RT) on athletic performance in adults.
Background: Currently, only 3% of SRs are considered clinically useful, 27% are redundant and unnecessary, 20% have irreparable flaws, and 17% are decent but not useful (Ioannidis, 2016). To our knowledge, no formal assessment of the methodological quality of SRs of BV-RT has been published.
Methods: This protocol follows the recommendations of the PRISMA-P statement (Shamseer et al., 2015) and has been registered in Open Science Framework (Loaiza-Betancur et al., 2024). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CDSR, Epistemonikos, SPORTDiscus, SR registries, and gray literature repositories from their inception to January 11, 2024. SRs of adults and older adults that investigated the effects of VB-RT on athletic performance were included. Two reviewers independently screened by title and abstract. Full-text screening, data extraction, and quality (credibility) assessment of SRs with the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool (Shea et al., 2017) will be performed by pairs of reviewers and independently (Higgins et al., 2022). We will investigate how much systematic reviews included the same studies (overlap) (Lunny et al., 2021). We will use the GROOVE tool for overlap reporting (Bougioukas et al., 2021; Bracchiglione et al., 2022). We will report the quality of each SR with an overall rating of credibility, which is determined by an evaluation of critical and non-critical items (7 critical items) (Shea et al., 2017).
Results: The search strategies retrieved a total of 1461 records. After removing duplicates with the help of the Rayyan.ai application (Ouzzani et al., 2016), the selection criteria were applied to a total of 912 records, of which 23 met our selection criteria for full-text review.
Discussion: The results of this SR may encourage researchers to improve methodological quality and adhere to international methodological guidelines in their SRs. This will facilitate their use and implementation in the context of decision-making.
Downloads
References
1. Bougioukas, K. I., Vounzoulaki, E., Mantsiou, C. D., Savvides, E. D., Karakosta, C., Diakonidis, T., Tsapas, A., y Haidich, A.-B. (2021). Methods for Depicting Overlap in Overviews of Systematic Reviews: An Introduction to Static Tabular and Graphical Displays. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 132, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.004
2. Bracchiglione, J., Meza, N., Bangdiwala, S. I., Niño De Guzmán, E., Urrútia, G., Bonfill, X., y Madrid, E. (2022). Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVERVIEWS: GROOVE Tool. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(3), 381-388. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1557
3. Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., y Welch, V. A. (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.4, 2023. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.4
4. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
5. Loaiza-Betancur, A. F., Ethel, L., Jiménez Trujillo, J. O., Chulvi Medrano, I., González-González, C., Zuluaga Marín, D. A., Castaño-Soto, J., Alzate Toro, A., Areiza Úsuga, E., Téllez, L. A., Hoyos Rodríguez, G. A., González Palacio, E. V., Osorio Estrada, H. A., y Díaz Franco, A. (2024). MARTE: Methodological Analysis and ReporTing Evaluation of both Resistance Training Trials and Resistance Training-Based Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PAJCN
6. Lunny, C., Pieper, D., Thabet, P., y Kanji, S. (2021). Managing Overlap of Primary Study Results Across Systematic Reviews: Practical Considerations for Authors of Overviews of Reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21, 140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01269-y
7. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., y Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan: A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
8. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., y the PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and Explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
9. Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., y Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews that Include Randomised or Non-Randomised Studies of Healthcare Interventions, or Both. BMJ, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur, Gloria Albany Hoyos Rodríguez, Víctor Díaz López, Iván Chulvi-Medrano, Enoc Valentín González Palacio, Juan Osvaldo Jiménez Trujillo, Andrés Mauricio Echavarría Rodríguez, Lisette Ethel Iglesias-González, Alejandro Alzate Toro, Cristian González González, Alejandro Díaz Franco, Diego Alejandro Zuluaga Marín, Elías Areiza Úsuga, Jeferson Castaño Soto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
