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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

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
Pages (from-to)2065-2067
Number of pages3
JournalSports Medicine
Volume50
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2020

Bibliographical note

Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

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