Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

Abstract

Background: Suboptimal practices have been observed in methodological conduct, transparency, and report quality of systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs) from different areas of the health sciences. To our knowledge, there is no such data on SRMAs from exercise sciences.Objective: To assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES initiative in 2019.Design: The SEES Initiative uses a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences.Data sources: During the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS).Eligibility criteria: SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Our methodological protocol is publicly available (https://osf.io/2cu8g/).Results: Out 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included: identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included: publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%) and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion: There is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies.

Best Practices for Meta-Reviews in Physical Activity and Health Research: Insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report

“…Ideally, the team provided a license for their data, posted a data availability statement, and archived their materials on an openaccess platform. 42 Adherence to these practices, will allow for more efficient updating of the MR and availability to other researchers to assess the validity of claims made in the original MR. 42 For example, the team should document the exact reasons for any reports excluded from the review (eg, in an appendix). This way, teams evaluating the MR's conclusions can evaluate assumptions underlying the original team's work.…”