Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introducing Systematic Reviews

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity

Abstract

Knowledge in sport, exercise, and physical activity has expanded and fragmented greatly in recent years. Although designed to synthesis research, many literature reviews have traditionally been written, metaphorically, under the cover of darkness. It is unclear the degree to which these products contain precise unbiased knowledge. The systematic review approach attempts to shine a rigorous torch on the synthesis process so readers gain answers to specific questions and learn about the quality of the evidence. The current chapter introduces the systematic review process in the context of sport, exercise, and physical activity research, laying a basis for subsequent chapters to help readers learn how to conduct these projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., Caird, J., & Thomas, J. (2017). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 93–122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25, 12–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Deeks, J. J., Davenport, C., & Clarke, M. J. (2017). Introduction. In J. P. T. Higgins, R. Churchill, J. Chandler, & M. S. Cumpston (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.2.0). Retrieved from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

  • Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A. L. (1979). 1931–1971: A critical review with particular reference to the medical profession. In G. Teeling-Smith & N. Wells (Eds.), Medicines for the year 2000 (pp. 2–12). London, UK: Office for Health Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, S., & Launder, C. (2000). Investigating muscularity concerns in male body image: Development of the Swansea Muscularity Attitudes Questionnaire. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(200007)28:1<120::AID-EAT15>3.0.CO;2-H.

  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed., pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews, 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. (2006). Systematic or unsystematic, is that the question? Some reflections on the science, art, and politics of reviewing research evidence. In A. Killoran, C. Swann, & M. P. Kelly (Eds.), Public health evidence: Tackling health inequalities (pp. 239–250). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, S. M., McEwan, D., Sylvester, B. D., Kaulius, M., Ruissen, G., Burke, S. M., Estabrooks, P. A., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2015). Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: A realist review. BMC Public Health, 15, article 958. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2270-8.

  • Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, L. (2015). Sport for development—A systematic map of evidence from Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 46, 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2014.989665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94, 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Macnamara, B. N., Moreau, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2016). The relationship between deliberate practice and performance in sports: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616635591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., & Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4, 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A., Booth, J. N., Laird, Y., Sproule, J., Reilly, J. J., & Saunders, D. H. (2018). Physical activity, diet and other behavioural interventions for improving cognition and school achievement in children and adolescents with obesity or overweight. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from www.cochranelibrary.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009728.pub3.

  • McCreary, D. R., & Sasse, D. K. (2000). An exploration of the drive for muscularity in adolescent boys and girls. Journal of American College Health, 48, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009596271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: State of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106, 485–488. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NICE. (2014). Physical activity: Exercise referral schemes. London, UK: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1993). The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26342.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., … Moher, D. (2016). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: A cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine, 13, e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2004). Realist synthesis: An introduction. Manchester, UK: Economic and Social Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. British Medical Journal, 322, 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pope, C., Mays, N., & Popay, J. (2007). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: A guide to methods. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987). Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 316, 450–455. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198702193160806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soundy, A., Kingstone, T., & Coffee, P. (2012). Understanding the psychosocial processes of physical activity for individuals with severe mental illness: A meta-ethnography. In L. L’Abate (Ed.), Mental illnesses—Evaluation, treatments and implications (pp. 3–20). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork, M. J., Banfield, L. E., Gibala, M. J., & Martin Ginis, K. A. (2017). A scoping review of the psychological responses to interval exercise: Is interval exercise a viable alternative to traditional exercise? Health Psychology Review, 11, 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1326011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweet, S. N., & Fortier, M. S. (2010). Improving physical activity and dietary behaviours with single or multiple health behaviour interventions? A synthesis of meta-analyses and reviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 1720–1743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7041720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timpka, T., Jacobsson, J., Ekberg, J., Finch, C. F., Bichenbach, J., Edouard, P., Bargoria, V., Branco, P., & Alonso, J. M. (2015). Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track and field). Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tod, D., & Eubank, M. (2017). Conducting a systematic review: Demystification for trainees in sport and exercise psychology. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 13(1), 65–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijay, G. C., Wilson, E. C. F., Suhrcke, M., Hardeman, W., & Sutton, S. (2016). Are brief interventions to increase physical activity cost-effective? A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50, 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-094655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voils, C. I., Sandelowski, M., Barroso, J., & Hasselblad, V. (2008). Making sense of qualitative and quantitative findings in mixed research synthesis studies. Field Methods, 20, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X07307463.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2015). The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. The Hague, The Netherlands: International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: A systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15, 195–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2014.998695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Sport and Exercise Science, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK

    David Tod

Authors
  1. David Tod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Tod .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tod, D. (2019). Introducing Systematic Reviews. In: Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12263-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation