You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Do we really need another systematic review?
  1. Carsten B Juhl1,2,
  2. Hans Lund3
  1. 1 Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  2. 2 Department of Rehabilitation University of Copenhagen, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
  3. 3 Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Professor Hans Lund, Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen 5063, Norway; hans.lund{at}hvl.no

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-099832

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Systematic reviews summarising the current evidence within a specific domain in sports medicine and science can contribute to clinical decisions about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. They provide a quick overview of the current evidence from a large number of studies. Summarising the results in meta-analysis can increase the power and precision of estimates. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis can potentially improve accuracy of conclusions because they show whether findings across studies are consistent and can be generalised.1

    The number of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE within sports medicine and science has increased from fewer than 10 every year in 2012 to more than 60 in 2017. Even though this increase in production of systematic reviews may augment the base for …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors Both authors have equally written the editorial.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.