Author: Daniel Umpierre

testing

“This assessment refers to the article entitled: Efficacy and feasibility of HIIT training for university students: The Uni-HIIT RCT, published in J Sci Med Sport (2019).

Our assessment comprises a total of 38 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 22 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

Too see this citation in PubMed, click here.”

Benzing & Schmidt, Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019

 

This assessment refers to the article entitled: The effect of exergaming on executive functions in children with ADHD: A randomized clinical trial, published in Scand J Med Sci Sports (2019).

Our assessment comprises a total of 38 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 28 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

Too see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Gordon et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: High-Intensity Single-Leg Cycling Improves Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Profile, published in Med Sci Sports Exerc (2019).

Our assessment comprises a total of 38 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 28 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

Too see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Sandal et al., Br J Sports Med. 2019

 

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Room for improvement: a randomised controlled trial with nested qualitative interviews on space, place and treatment delivery, published in Br J Sports Med (2019).

Our assessment comprises a total of 38 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 34 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

Too see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Parmenter et al., Br J Sports Med, 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 27 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Webster & Hewett – Sports Med 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 23 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed click here.

Trexler et al., Sports Med., 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 23 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Moran et al., Sports Med, 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 28 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Miller et al., Sports Med, 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 31 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Wilke et al., Sports Med, 2019

Our assessment comprises a total of 36 items based on recommended standards for reporting completeness or methodological conduct. For this article, our assessment resulted in 19 items classified ‘as recommended’.

To avoid an unfair calculation of items ‘as recommended’, whenever an item was not applicable to be assessed for a specific study, such response choices (‘Does not apply’) were counted as ‘as recommended’. Our assessments are conducted by two independent reviewers who work based on a publicly available manual of standardized procedures. However, as science itself, our assessments can contain errors. If you find anything that should be re-assessed or corrected, please contact us.

To read a PDF document presenting our full assessment for this article, click here.

To see this citation in PubMed, click here.