ArticleiScience2024
Risk of bias in exercise science: A systematic review of 340 studies.
Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and risk factors of prostate cancer in Nigeria.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- The impact of resistance training on gluteus maximus hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Pooled it
- Responses to Exercise with Low Carbohydrate Availability on Muscle Glycogen and Cell Signaling: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Pooled it
- Standard Deviation of Individual Response for VOSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- PERM1-An Emerging Transcriptional Regulator of Mitochondrial Biogenesis: A Systematic Review.Genes · 2024Pooled it
- Six Weeks of Low-Volume Sprint Interval Training Improves Peak Oxygen Uptake Compared to a Non-Exercise Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports · 2025Trial
- Beyond Static Assessment: A Proof-of-Concept Evaluation of Functional Data Analysis for Assessing Physiological Responses to High-Intensity Effort.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Aerobic Exercise Training and VOJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Review
- Mitochondrial and cardiovascular responses to aerobic exercise training in supine and upright positions in healthy young adults: a randomized parallel arm trial.Translational exercise biomedicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk of bias can contribute to irreproducible science and mislead decision making. Analyses of smaller subsections of the exercise science literature suggest many exercise science studies have unclear or high risk of bias. The current review (osf.io/jznv8) assesses whether this unclear or high risk of bias is more widespread in the exercise science literature and whether this bias has decreased since the publication of the 1996 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. We report significant reductions in selection, performance, detection, and reporting biases in 2020 compared with 1995 in the 340 of 5,451 studies assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Despite these improvements, most 2020 studies still had unclear or high risks of bias. These results underscore the need for methodological vigilance, adherence to reporting standards, and education on experimental bias. Factors contributing to these improvements, such advancements in education and journal requirements, remain uncertain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.