Variability in the study quality appraisals reported in systematic reviews on the acute:chronic workload ratio and injury risk

Greg Atkinson, Alan Batterham, Paul Chesterton, Gregory MacMillan, Lorenzo Lolli, Warren Gregson, Matthew Weston

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

We welcome the recent systematic review by Andrade et al. [1], who explored in a detailed manner
the question of whether the acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is associated with risk of
time‑ loss injury in professional team sports. Including their paper, there are now at least four
systematic reviews published on this topic over the last two years [1-4]. Despite this number of
evidence syntheses, we would like to highlight the worrying degree of inconsistency in conclusions
between these reviews. While there are some differences between reviews in the selected study
population, we question whether it is heterogeneity in the various appraisals of study quality that
best explains the inconsistency in conclusions.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages29
JournalSports Medicine
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 10 Aug 2020

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Variability in the study quality appraisals reported in systematic reviews on the acute:chronic workload ratio and injury risk'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this