休闲和竞技运动员参赛前评估--指南和共识声明系统回顾。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Alina Weise, Nadja Könsgen, Christine Joisten, Fabian Schlumberger, Anja Hirschmüller, Jessica Breuing, Käthe Gooßen
{"title":"休闲和竞技运动员参赛前评估--指南和共识声明系统回顾。","authors":"Alina Weise, Nadja Könsgen, Christine Joisten, Fabian Schlumberger, Anja Hirschmüller, Jessica Breuing, Käthe Gooßen","doi":"10.1186/s40798-025-00837-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-participation evaluation (PPE) aims to support safe participation in sports. The goal of this systematic review was to aggregate evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the PPE of recreational or competitive athletes as preparation for developing a German guideline on this subject.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five databases, including MEDLINE, were searched in August 2022, complemented by searches on the websites of relevant guideline organisations and specialty medical associations and citation screening. We included guidelines/consensus statements with recommendations for PPE of adult recreational athletes or competitive athletes of any age, excluding those with certain chronic illnesses. We extracted and synthesised data in a structured manner and appraised quality using selected domains of the AGREE-II tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the 6611 records found, we included 35 documents. Overall, the quality of the included documents was low. Seven documents (20%) made recommendations on the entire PPE process, while the remainder focussed on cardiovascular screening (16/35, 45.7%) or other topics. We extracted 305 recommendations. Of these, 11.8% (36/305) applied to recreational athletes and 88.2% (269/305) applied to athletes in organised or competitive sports. A total of 12.8% (39/305) of recommendations were directly linked to evidence from primary studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many recommendations exist for PPE, but only a few are evidence based. The lack of primary studies evaluating the effects of screening on health outcomes may have led to this lack of evidence-based guidelines and contributed to poor rigour in guideline development. Future guidelines/consensus statements require a more robust evidence base, and reporting should improve.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022355112.</p>","PeriodicalId":21788,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine - Open","volume":"11 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11972279/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pre-Participation Evaluation of Recreational and Competitive Athletes - A Systematic Review of Guidelines and Consensus Statements.\",\"authors\":\"Alina Weise, Nadja Könsgen, Christine Joisten, Fabian Schlumberger, Anja Hirschmüller, Jessica Breuing, Käthe Gooßen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40798-025-00837-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre-participation evaluation (PPE) aims to support safe participation in sports. The goal of this systematic review was to aggregate evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the PPE of recreational or competitive athletes as preparation for developing a German guideline on this subject.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five databases, including MEDLINE, were searched in August 2022, complemented by searches on the websites of relevant guideline organisations and specialty medical associations and citation screening. We included guidelines/consensus statements with recommendations for PPE of adult recreational athletes or competitive athletes of any age, excluding those with certain chronic illnesses. We extracted and synthesised data in a structured manner and appraised quality using selected domains of the AGREE-II tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the 6611 records found, we included 35 documents. Overall, the quality of the included documents was low. Seven documents (20%) made recommendations on the entire PPE process, while the remainder focussed on cardiovascular screening (16/35, 45.7%) or other topics. We extracted 305 recommendations. Of these, 11.8% (36/305) applied to recreational athletes and 88.2% (269/305) applied to athletes in organised or competitive sports. A total of 12.8% (39/305) of recommendations were directly linked to evidence from primary studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many recommendations exist for PPE, but only a few are evidence based. The lack of primary studies evaluating the effects of screening on health outcomes may have led to this lack of evidence-based guidelines and contributed to poor rigour in guideline development. Future guidelines/consensus statements require a more robust evidence base, and reporting should improve.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022355112.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21788,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11972279/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sports Medicine - Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00837-6\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine - Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00837-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pre-Participation Evaluation of Recreational and Competitive Athletes - A Systematic Review of Guidelines and Consensus Statements.

Background: Pre-participation evaluation (PPE) aims to support safe participation in sports. The goal of this systematic review was to aggregate evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the PPE of recreational or competitive athletes as preparation for developing a German guideline on this subject.

Methods: Five databases, including MEDLINE, were searched in August 2022, complemented by searches on the websites of relevant guideline organisations and specialty medical associations and citation screening. We included guidelines/consensus statements with recommendations for PPE of adult recreational athletes or competitive athletes of any age, excluding those with certain chronic illnesses. We extracted and synthesised data in a structured manner and appraised quality using selected domains of the AGREE-II tool.

Results: From the 6611 records found, we included 35 documents. Overall, the quality of the included documents was low. Seven documents (20%) made recommendations on the entire PPE process, while the remainder focussed on cardiovascular screening (16/35, 45.7%) or other topics. We extracted 305 recommendations. Of these, 11.8% (36/305) applied to recreational athletes and 88.2% (269/305) applied to athletes in organised or competitive sports. A total of 12.8% (39/305) of recommendations were directly linked to evidence from primary studies.

Conclusion: Many recommendations exist for PPE, but only a few are evidence based. The lack of primary studies evaluating the effects of screening on health outcomes may have led to this lack of evidence-based guidelines and contributed to poor rigour in guideline development. Future guidelines/consensus statements require a more robust evidence base, and reporting should improve.

Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022355112.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine - Open
Sports Medicine - Open SPORT SCIENCES-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信