Document Type : Meta-Analyses
Authors
1 Department of Sports Injury and Biomechanics, Faculty of Sport Sciences and Health, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Corrective Exercise and Sports Injury, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
3 Corrective exercise and Sport injury , Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis study aims to investigate the effect of warming up on knee position sense.
Methods: The keywords of this systematic review and meta-analysis study were searched on December 1 by two authors in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The Downs and Black checklist checked the quality of articles. Statistical analysis was performed using CMA software. The I-square statistic was used to examine the data heterogeneity and estimate the percentage of heterogeneity. Besides, the Funnel Plot method was used for assessing the risk of bias in articles, and the trim-and-fill method was used in case of observation of possible bias.
Results: Out of 5,133 studies found in selected databases, 31 were selected after reviewing the title and abstract, and seven articles were included in the study after reviewing the full text. The results indicated that warming up has a significant effect on reducing the active absolute angular error (P<0.05) and increasing the active relative angular error (P<0.05) but has no significant effect on the passive absolute angular error (P>0.05).
Discussion: Warming can reduce absolute and relative angular error. Therefore, it has a significant effect on improving proprioception.
Highlights
Downs and Black checklist
|
Reviewer’s initials: First Author: Journal: Year published: |
|||||
|
Reporting |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Partially |
|
|
1. |
Is the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly described? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
2. |
Are the main outcomes to be measured clearly described in the Introduction or Methods section? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
3. |
Are the characteristics of the patients included in the study clearly described? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
4. |
Are the interventions of interest clearly described? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
5. |
Are the distributions of principal confounders in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described? |
2 |
0 |
|
1 |
|
6. |
Are the main findings of the study clearly described? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
7. |
Does the study provide estimates of the random variability in the data for the main outcomes? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
8. |
Have actual probability values been reported (e.g., 0.035 rather than <0.05) for the main outcomes except where the probability value is less than 0.001? |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
Total reporting score: ________ /9 |
|||||
|
External validity |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Partially |
|
|
9. |
Were the subjects asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
10. |
Were those subjects who were prepared to participate representative of the entire population from which they were recruited? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total external validity score: ________ /2 |
|||||
|
Internal validity – bias |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Partially |
|
|
11. |
Was an attempt made to blind study subjects to the intervention they have received? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
12. |
Was an attempt made to blind those measuring the main outcomes of the intervention? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
13. |
If any of the results of the study were based on “data dredging,” was this made clear? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
14. |
Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
15. |
Was compliance with the intervention/s reliable? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
16. |
Were the main outcome measures used accurate (valid and reliable)? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total bias score: _________ /6 |
|||||
|
Internal validity – confounding |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Partially |
|
|
17. |
Were the patients in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited from the same population? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
18. |
Were study subjects in different intervention groups (trials and cohort studies) or were the cases and controls (case-control studies) recruited over the same period of time? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
19. |
Were study subjects randomized to intervention groups? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
20. |
Was the randomized intervention assignment concealed from both patients and health care staff until recruitment was complete and irrevocable? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
21. |
Was there adequate adjustment for confounding in the analyses from which the main findings were drawn? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total confounding score: ________ /6 |
|||||
|
Power |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Partially |
|
|
22. |
Were appropriate power calculations reported? |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Total power score: ________ /1 |
|||||
|
*Total quality score: _______ /24 |
|||||
Keywords
)