Category: analysis

Cešeiko et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Heavy Resistance Training in Breast Cancer Patients Undergoing Adjuvant Therapy, 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 21 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.

Tollár et al., Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Exercise Effects on Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life and Clinical-Motor Symptoms, 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 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.

Too see this citation in PubMed, click here.

Forrest et al., J Sci Med Sport. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Exercise-based injury prevention for community-level adolescent cricket pace bowlers: A cluster-randomised controlled trial, 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 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.

Xavier et al., J Physiother. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Combined aerobic and resistance training improves respiratory and exercise outcomes more than aerobic training in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a randomised trial, published in J Physiother (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 29 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.

Zarei et al., J Sci Med Sport. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: The 11+ Kids warm-up programme to prevent injuries in young Iranian male high-level
football (soccer) players: a cluster-randomised controlled trial, 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 24 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.

Hott et al., Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Patellofemoral pain: One year results of a randomized trial comparing hip exercise, knee exercise, or free activity, 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 24 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.

Hsieh et al., Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Individualized home-based exercise and nutrition interventions improve frailty in older adults: a randomized controlled trial, published in Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (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 33 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.

Emery et al., Br J Sports Med. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Implementing a junior high school-based programme to reduce sports injuries through neuromuscular training (iSPRINT): a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), 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 33 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.

van Vugt et al., BMJ. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Internet based vestibular rehabilitation with and without physiotherapy support for adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome in general practice: three armed randomised controlled trial, published in The BMJ (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 37 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.

Avila et al., Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019

This assessment refers to the article entitled: Home-based exercise with telemonitoring guidance in patients with coronary artery disease: Does it improve long-term physical fitness?, published in Eur J Prev Cardiol (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 29 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.