Abstract:Selected warm-up exercise may increase PFT and possibly CFT scores. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of dynamic stretching and dynamic warm-ups.
“…Following full-text review, 66 rapid reviews produced between 2013 and 2014 fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were included [ 12 – 77 ]. Thirty-three were journal-published [ 12 – 44 ] and 33 were unpublished [ 45 – 77 ] rapid reviews. See Additional file 2 for a full list of included and excluded studies.…”
BackgroundRapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.ResultsSixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.ConclusionsTransparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
“…Following full-text review, 66 rapid reviews produced between 2013 and 2014 fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were included [ 12 – 77 ]. Thirty-three were journal-published [ 12 – 44 ] and 33 were unpublished [ 45 – 77 ] rapid reviews. See Additional file 2 for a full list of included and excluded studies.…”
BackgroundRapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.ResultsSixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.ConclusionsTransparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
“…Sport-specific and population-specific movement screens also exist, such as the Titleist Performance Institute (TPI) screen, 4 Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool, 5 and military fitness screening. 6 While the specific components of these evaluations may vary, there are some common aspects. Typical screens require minimal equipment and can be quickly performed in a clinical setting to test aspects of fitness and/or movement important to individuals' sport, occupation, or daily life.…”
Pre-participation and return to activity functional assessments are commonly used in clinical practice to assess movement quality and identify athletes’ limitations. While there are slight differences between each specific test battery, general guidelines suggest that the tests be completed without a warm-up. This has been suggested because dynamic stretching may improve range of motion and athletic performance. However, athletes typically warm up prior to participating in sport. Therefore, researchers should investigate the acute effects of dynamic stretching on functional tests and movement screens and evaluate other factors that may influence performance on these test batteries. Scientific evidence for standardized implementation of various movement screens is lacking, and future research should aim to identify gaps in the literature to allow clinicians to properly implement evidence-based practice functional assessments. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss various considerations for implementing movement screens and assessment tools into clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 5
“…The REAL process can be used to evaluate interventions or claims in many fields including conventional medicine, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), integrative health care (aka integrative medicine, IM), wellness, and health promotion, resilience and performance enhancement areas and more. In fact, to date, the REAL process has been applied to several topical areas [ 4 , 12 – 16 ] with more recent published work including a Department of Defense (DoD) funded SR of reviews on acupuncture for the treatment of trauma spectrum response (TSR) components [ 4 ], self-care and integrative health care practices for stress management [ 15 ], self-care and integrative practices for the management of pain [ 14 ] and warm-up exercises for physical performance [ 13 ]. Fig.…”
BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are widely recognized as the best means of synthesizing clinical research. However, traditional approaches can be costly and time-consuming and can be subject to selection and judgment bias. It can also be difficult to interpret the results of a SR in a meaningful way in order to make research recommendations, clinical or policy decisions, or practice guidelines. Samueli Institute has developed the Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL) SR process to address these issues. REAL provides up-to-date, rigorous, high quality SR information on health care practices, products, or programs in a streamlined, efficient and reliable manner. This process is a component of the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™) program developed by Samueli Institute, which aims at answering the question of “What works?” in health care.Methods/designThe REAL process (1) tailors a standardized search strategy to a specific and relevant research question developed with various stakeholders to survey the available literature; (2) evaluates the quantity and quality of the literature using structured tools and rulebooks to ensure objectivity, reliability and reproducibility of reviewer ratings in an independent fashion and; (3) obtains formalized, balanced input from trained subject matter experts on the implications of the evidence for future research and current practice.ResultsOnline tools and quality assurance processes are utilized for each step of the review to ensure a rapid, rigorous, reliable, transparent and reproducible SR process.ConclusionsThe REAL is a rapid SR process developed to streamline and aid in the rigorous and reliable evaluation and review of claims in health care in order to make evidence-based, informed decisions, and has been used by a variety of organizations aiming to gain insight into “what works” in health care. Using the REAL system allows for the facilitation of recommendations on appropriate next steps in policy, funding, and research and for making clinical and field decisions in a timely, transparent, and cost-effective manner.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
