Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

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

  • 1503 Accesses

Abstract

A systematic literature search can yield hundreds or thousands of records, each a potential relevant study. Sustained attention to detail is a pre-requisite for identifying relevant research. Well-constructed, clear, and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria assist decision making consistency. In this chapter, I focus on inclusion and exclusion criteria, explain their benefits, provide guidelines on their construction and use, and illustrate with examples from sport, exercise, and physical activity research.

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

  • Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P. A., & d’Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58, 151–179. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058002151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. B. (2005). Coming full circle: From practice to research. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport psychology in practice (pp. 287–298). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. B., McCullagh, P., & Wilson, G. J. (2007). But what do the numbers really tell us? Arbitrary metrics and effect size reporting in sport psychology research. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.5.664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benzies, K. M., Premji, S., Hayden, K. A., & Serrett, K. (2006). State-of-the-evidence reviews: Advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 3, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2006.00051.x.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016). Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 14, article 85. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5.

  • Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22, 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Tod, D. (2009). A framework for the study and application of self-talk within sport. In S. D. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review (pp. 37–74). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., … 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, J., Vandermeer, B., Hartling, L., Tjosvold, L., Klassen, T. P., & Buscemi, N. (2010). Systematic review data extraction: Cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systematic review: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munoz, S. R., & Bangdiwala, S. I. (1997). Interpretation of Kappa and B statistics measures of agreement. Journal of Applied Statistics, 24, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664769723918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, D., Green, S., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated September 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roig, M., O’Brien, K., Kirk, G., Murray, R., McKinnon, P., Shadgan, B., & Reid, W. D. (2009). The effects of eccentric versus concentric resistance training on muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 556–568. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.051417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E. (1997). Choosing the best research design for each question. British Medical Journal, 315, 1636. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tod, D., & Edwards, C. (2015). A meta-analysis of the drive for muscularity’s relationships with exercise behaviour, disordered eating, supplement consumption, and exercise dependence. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2015.1052089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treadwell, J. R., Singh, S., Talati, R., McPheeters, M. L., & Reston, J. T. (2011). A framework for “best evidence” approaches in systematic reviews. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walach, H., & Loef, M. (2015). Using a matrix-analytical approach to synthesizing evidence solved incompatibility problem in the hierarchy of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 1251–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594.

    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). Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. In: Conducting Systematic Reviews in Sport, Exercise, and Physical Activity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12263-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation