Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017; Elsevier BV; Volume: 21; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.001

1440-2440

Jordi Vicens‐Bordas, Ernest Esteve, Azahara Fort‐Vanmeerhaeghe, Thomas Bandholm, Kristian Thorborg,

Sports Performance and Training

It is with specific interest that we have read the recent paper "Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis" published in Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport. 1 Maroto-Izquierdo S. García-López D. Fernandez-Gonzalo R. et al. Skeletal muscle functional and structural adaptations after eccentric overload flywheel resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2017; 20https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.03.004 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (105) Google Scholar The reason being that we registered a very similar protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis at PROSPERO on 8 May 2015 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015020337), which is now under review. Such overlap is unfortunate and could have been avoided if the authors had registered their protocol following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2 Shamseer L. Moher D. Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 349: g7647https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 Crossref Scopus (6517) Google Scholar and the PRISMA statement. 3 Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009; 3: e123-e130 PubMed Google Scholar The lack of a protocol registration preceding a systematic review and meta-analysis is problematic, as it increases the possibility for research duplication, and thus research waste, as individual groups may unknowingly end up performing almost identical systematic reviews. 4 Lund H. Brunnhuber K. Juhl C. et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016; 355: 1-5https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5440 Crossref Scopus (73) Google Scholar Such issue have been raised by members of our group in the sports medicine literature before. 5 Thorborg K. Krommes K. Esteve E. et al. High risk of bias and low transparency in "How effective are F-MARC injury prevention programs for soccer players? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sport Med. 2016; 46: 293-294https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0458-9 Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar