TY - JOUR A1 - Chaabene, Helmi A1 - Negra, Yassine A1 - Bouguezzi, Raja A1 - Capranica, Laura A1 - Franchini, Emerson A1 - Prieske, Olaf A1 - Hbacha, Hamdi A1 - Granacher, Urs T1 - Tests for the Assessment of Sport-Specific Performance in Olympic Combat Sports BT - A Systematic Review With Practical Recommendations JF - Frontiers in Physiology N2 - The regular monitoring of physical fitness and sport-specific performance is important in elite sports to increase the likelihood of success in competition. This study aimed to systematically review and to critically appraise the methodological quality, validation data, and feasibility of the sport-specific performance assessment in Olympic combat sports like amateur boxing, fencing, judo, karate, taekwondo, and wrestling. A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, Google-Scholar, and Science-Direct up to October 2017. Studies in combat sports were included that reported validation data (e.g., reliability, validity, sensitivity) of sport-specific tests. Overall, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The majority of studies (74%) contained sample sizes <30 subjects. Nearly, 1/3 of the reviewed studies lacked a sufficient description (e.g., anthropometrics, age, expertise level) of the included participants. Seventy-two percent of studies did not sufficiently report inclusion/exclusion criteria of their participants. In 62% of the included studies, the description and/or inclusion of a familiarization session (s) was either incomplete or not existent. Sixty-percent of studies did not report any details about the stability of testing conditions. Approximately half of the studies examined reliability measures of the included sport-specific tests (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.43–1.00). Content validity was addressed in all included studies, criterion validity (only the concurrent aspect of it) in approximately half of the studies with correlation coefficients ranging from r = −0.41 to 0.90. Construct validity was reported in 31% of the included studies and predictive validity in only one. Test sensitivity was addressed in 13% of the included studies. The majority of studies (64%) ignored and/or provided incomplete information on test feasibility and methodological limitations of the sport-specific test. In 28% of the included studies, insufficient information or a complete lack of information was provided in the respective field of the test application. Several methodological gaps exist in studies that used sport-specific performance tests in Olympic combat sports. Additional research should adopt more rigorous validation procedures in the application and description of sport-specific performance tests in Olympic combat sports. KW - martial arts KW - validity KW - sensitivity KW - methodological quality KW - specific assessment Y1 - 2018 U6 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00386 SN - 1664-042X VL - 9 SP - 1 EP - 18 PB - Frontiers Research Foundation CY - Lausanne ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Matthias, Katja A1 - Rissling, Olesja A1 - Pieper, Dawid Aleksander A1 - Morche, Johannes A1 - Nocon, Marc A1 - Jacobs, Anja A1 - Wegewitz, Uta Elke A1 - Schirm, Jaqueline A1 - Lorenz, Robert C. T1 - The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2 BT - a cross-sectional study JF - Heliyon N2 - Background: Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update -AMSTAR 2 -is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined. Results: In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. Limitations: AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score. Conclusions: According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed. KW - public health KW - epidemiology KW - psychiatry KW - depression KW - evidence-based KW - medicine KW - AMSTAR 2 KW - methodological quality KW - risk of bias KW - systematic KW - review KW - major depression Y1 - 2020 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04776 SN - 2405-8440 VL - 6 IS - 9 PB - Elsevier CY - London [u.a.] ER -