Introducing JOSPT Methods: A Journal Focused on Advancing the Research Methods Applied to the Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Field.

SYNOPSIS: In 2025, JOSPT will continue its mission to enhance research in the field of musculoskeletal rehabilitation. JOSPT aims to support authors who are working to advance the research methods applied to answer clinical questions in the musculoskeletal rehabilitation field. Using the most robust methods helps authors ensure their studies can have immediate impact on health policies and clinical practice. With this editorial, we introduce a new gold open-access journal, JOSPT Methods, where research will be available to read for free, immediately upon publication. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(10):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12972.

A Change-Point Method to Detect Meaningful Change in Return-to-Sport Progression in Athletes.

PURPOSE: To explore how the change-point method can be used to analyze complex longitudinal data and detect when meaningful changes (change points) have occurred during rehabilitation. METHOD: This design is a prospective single-case observational study of a football player in a professional club who sustained an acute lower-limb muscle injury during high-speed running in training. The rehabilitation program was entirely completed in the football club under the supervision of the club's medical team. Four wellness metrics and 5 running-performance metrics were collected before the injury and until the player returned to play. RESULTS: Data were collected over 130 days. In the univariate analysis, the change points for stress, sleep, mood, and soreness were located on days 30, 47, 50, and 50, respectively. The change points for total distance, acceleration, maximum speed, deceleration, and high-speed running were located on days 32, 34, 37, 41, and 41, respectively. The multivariate analysis resulted in a single change point for the wellness metrics and running-performance metrics, on days 50 and 67, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The univariate approach provided information regarding the sequence and time point of the change points. The multivariate approach provided a common change point for multiple metrics, information that would benefit clinicians to have a broad overview of the changes in the rehabilitation process. Clinicians may consider the change-point method to integrate and visualize data from multiple sources to evaluate athletes' progression along the return-to-sport continuum.

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs. METHODS: We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. RESULTS: Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

Judgement and Decision Making in Clinical and Return-to-Sports Decision Making: A Narrative Review.

Making return-to-sport decisions can be complex and multi-faceted, as it requires an evaluation of an individual's physical, psychological, and social well-being. Specifically, the timing of progression, regression, or return to sport can be difficult to determine due to the multitude of information that needs to be considered by clinicians. With the advent of new sports technology, the increasing volume of data poses a challenge to clinicians in effectively processing and utilising it to enhance the quality of their decisions. To gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying human decision making and associated biases, this narrative review provides a brief overview of different decision-making models that are relevant to sports rehabilitation settings. Accordingly, decisions can be made intuitively, analytically, and/or with heuristics. This narrative review demonstrates how the decision-making models can be applied in the context of return-to-sport decisions and shed light on strategies that may help clinicians improve decision quality.

The Physical Demands of Wheelchair Tennis Match Play: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Wheelchair tennis, a globally popular sport, features a professional tour spanning 40 countries and over 160 tournaments. Despite its widespread appeal, information about the physical demands of wheelchair tennis is scattered across various studies, necessitating a comprehensive systematic review to synthesise available data. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to provide a detailed synthesis of the physical demands associated with wheelchair tennis, encompassing diverse factors such as court surfaces, performance levels, sport classes, and sexes. METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches in the PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases, covering articles from inception to March 1, 2023. Forward and backward citation tracking from the included articles was carried out using Scopus, and we established eligibility criteria following the Population, Exposure, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design (PECOS) framework. Our study focused on wheelchair tennis players participating at regional, national, or international levels, including both juniors and adults, and open and quad players. We analysed singles and doubles matches and considered sex (male, female), sport class (open, quad), and court surface type (hard, clay, grass) as key comparative points. The outcomes of interest encompassed play duration, on-court movement, stroke performance, and physiological match variables. The selected study designs included observational cross-sectional, longitudinal, and intervention studies (baseline data only). We calculated pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and employed a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. RESULTS: Our literature search retrieved 643 records, with 24 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Most available information focused on international male wheelchair tennis players in the open division, primarily competing in singles on hard courts. Key findings (mean [95% CI]) for these players on hard courts were match duration 65.9 min [55.0-78.8], set duration 35.0 min [28.2-43.5], game duration 4.6 min [0.92-23.3], rally duration 6.1 s [3.7-10.2], effective playing time 19.8% [18.9-20.7], and work-to-rest ratio 1:4.1 [1:3.7-1:4.4]. Insufficient data were available to analyse play duration for female players. However, for the available data on hard court matches, the average set duration was 34.8 min [32.5-37.2]. International male players on hard court covered an average distance per match of 3859 m [1917-7768], with mean and peak average forward speeds of 1.06 m/s [0.85-1.32] and 3.55 m/s [2.92-4.31], respectively. These players executed an average of 365.9 [317.2-422.1] strokes per match, 200.6 [134.7-299.0] per set, 25.4 [16.7-38.7] per game, and 3.4 [2.6-4.6] per rally. Insufficient data were available for a meta-analysis of female players' on-court movement and stroke performance. The average and peak heart rates of international male players on hard court were 134.3 [124.2-145.1] and 166.0 [132.7-207.6] beats per minute, and the average match heart rate expressed as a percentage of peak heart rate was 74.7% [46.4-100]. We found no studies concerning regional players or juniors, and only one study on doubles match play. CONCLUSIONS: While we present a comprehensive overview of the physical demands of wheelchair tennis, our understanding predominantly centres around international male players competing on hard courts in the open division. To attain a more comprehensive insight into the sport's physical requirements, future research should prioritise the inclusion of data on female and quad players, juniors, doubles, and matches played on clay and grass court surfaces. Such endeavours will facilitate the development of more tailored and effective training programmes for wheelchair tennis players and coaches. The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (Registration https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.3.0060 ).

Consensus methods in patellofemoral pain: how rigorous are they? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians treating patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP) rely on consensus statements to make the best practice recommendations in the absence of definitive evidence on how to manage PFP. However, the methods used to generate and assess agreement for these recommendations have not been examined. Our objective was to map the methods used to generate consensus-based recommendations for PFP and apply four novel questions to assess the rigour of consensus development. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and Embase from inception to May 2022 to identify consensus-derived statements or practice guidelines on PFP. The Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis was followed to map the existing evidence. We measured the consensus methods based on four sets of questions addressing the panel composition, application of the consensus method chosen, agreement process and the use of evidence mapping. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All consensus statements or clinical guidelines on PFP were considered. RESULTS: Twenty-two PFP consensus statements were identified. Panel composition: 3 of the 22 (14%) consensus groups reported the panellists' experience, 2 (9%) defined a desired level of expertise, 10 (45%) reported panellist sex and only 2 (9%) included a patient. Consensus method: 7 of 22 (32%) reported using an established method of consensus measurement/development. Agreement process: 10 of 22 (45%) reported their consensus threshold and 2 (9%) acknowledged dissenting opinions among the panel. Evidence mapping: 6 of 22 (27%) reported using systematic methods to identify relevant evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: PFP consensus panels have lacked diversity and excluded key partners including patients. Consensus statements on PFP frequently fail to use recognised consensus methods, rarely describe how 'agreement' was defined or measured and often neglect to use systematic methods to identify evidence gaps.

How Low Back Pain is Managed-A Mixed-Methods Study in 32 Countries. Part 2 of Low Back Pain in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Series.

BACKGROUND: The Lancet Low Back Pain (LBP) Series highlighted the lack of LBP data from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The study aimed to describe (1) what LBP care is currently delivered in LMICs and (2) how that care is delivered. DESIGN: An online mixed-methods study. METHODS: A Consortium for LBP in LMICs (n = 65) was developed with an expert panel of leading LBP researchers (>2 publications on LBP) and multidisciplinary clinicians and patient partners with 5 years of clinical/lived LBP experience in LMICs. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Two researchers independently analyzed qualitative data using inductive and deductive coding and developed a thematic framework. RESULTS: Forty-seven (85%) of 55 invited panel members representing 32 LMICs completed the survey (38% women, 62% men). The panel included clinicians (34%), researchers (28%), educators (6%), and people with lived experience (4%). Pharmacotherapies and electrophysiological agents were the most used LBP treatments. The thematic framework comprised 8 themes: (1) self-management is ubiquitous, (2) medicines are the cornerstone, (3) traditional therapies have a place, (4) society plays an important role, (5) imaging use is very common, (6) reliance on passive approaches, (7) social determinants influence LBP care pathway, and (8) health systems are ill-prepared to address LBP burden. CONCLUSION: LBP care in LMICs did not consistently align with the best available evidence. Findings will help research prioritization in LMICs and guide global LBP clinical guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(8):560-572. Epub 11 April 2024. doi:10.2519/jospt.2024.12406.

Trustworthy Evidence to Support Quality Digital Healthcare Policy for Underserved Communities: What Needs to Happen to Translate Evidence into Policy?

In this paper, we explore what is needed to generate quality research to guide evidence-informed digital health policy and call the Canadian community of patients, clinicians, policy (decision) makers and researchers to action in setting digital health research priorities for supporting underserved communities. Using specific examples, we describe how evidence is produced and implemented to guide digital health policy. We study how research environments must change to reflect and include the communities for whom the policy is intended. Our goal is to guide how future evidence reaches policy makers to help them shape healthcare services and how these services are delivered to underserved communities in Canada. Understanding the pathways through which evidence can make a difference to equitable and sustainable digital health policy is vital for guiding the types of research that attract priority resources.

Learning Health Systems: A Paradigm Shift in What We Can Do about Digital Health Inequities.

Learning health systems (LHSs) embed social accountability into everyday workflows and can inform how governments build bridges across the digital health divide. They shape partnerships using rapid cycles of data-driven learning to respond to patients' calls to action for equity from digital health. Adopting the LHS approach involves re-distributing power, which is likely to be met with resistance. We use the LHS example of British Columbia's 811 services to highlight how infrastructure was created to provide care and answer questions about access to digital health, outcomes from it and the financial impact passed on to patients. In the concluding section, we offer an accountability framework that facilitates partnerships in making digital health more equitable.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

The effects of eating frequency on changes in body composition and cardiometabolic health in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Eating frequency may affect body weight and cardiometabolic health. Intervention trials and observational studies have both indicated that high- and low-frequency eating can be associated with better health outcomes. There are currently no guidelines to inform how to advise healthy adults about how frequently to consume food or beverages. AIM: To establish whether restricted- (≤ three meals per day) frequency had a superior effect on markers of cardiometabolic health (primary outcome: weight change) compared to unrestricted-eating (≥ four meals per day) frequency in adults. METHODS: We searched Medline (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CAB Direct and Web of Science Core Collection electronic databases from inception to 7 June 2022 for clinical trials (randomised parallel or cross-over trials) reporting on the effect of high or low-frequency eating on cardiometabolic health (primary outcome: weight change). Trial interventions had to last for at least two weeks, and had to have been conducted in human adults. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Seventeen reports covering 16 trials were included in the systematic review. Data from five trials were excluded from meta-analysis due to insufficient reporting. 15 of 16 trials were at high risk of bias. There was very low certainty evidence of no difference between high- and low-frequency eating for weight-change (MD: -0.62 kg, CI95: -2.76 to 1.52 kg, p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: There was no discernible advantage to eating in a high- or low-frequency dietary pattern for cardiometabolic health. We cannot advocate for either restricted- or unrestricted eating frequency to change markers of cardiometabolic health in healthy young to middle-aged adults. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42019137938.

Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications.

The allocation of public funds for research has been predominantly based on peer review where reviewers are asked to rate an application on some form of ordinal scale from poor to excellent. Poor reliability and bias of peer review rating has led funding agencies to experiment with different approaches to assess applications. In this study, we compared the reliability and potential sources of bias associated with application rating with those of application ranking in 3,156 applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Ranking was more reliable than rating and less susceptible to the characteristics of the review panel, such as level of expertise and experience, for both reliability and potential sources of bias. However, both rating and ranking penalized early career investigators and favoured older applicants. Sex bias was only evident for rating and only when the applicant's H-index was at the lower end of the H-index distribution. We conclude that when compared to rating, ranking provides a more reliable assessment of the quality of research applications, is not as influenced by reviewer expertise or experience, and is associated with fewer sources of bias. Research funding agencies should consider adopting ranking methods to improve the quality of funding decisions in health research.

Athletes' experiences of using a self-directed psychological support, the BAck iN the Game (BANG) smartphone application, during rehabilitation for return to sports following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), many athletes do not return to their sport, often driven by concerns about re-injury. Psychological support strategies might help, but are not routinely included in rehabilitation after ACLR. The BAck iN the Game (BANG) intervention is a 24-week eHealth program delivered via smartphone application (app), beginning directly after ACLR, with a self-directed approach that aims to target the specific challenges athletes encounter in rehabilitation. AIM: To describe athletes' experiences of using the BANG app during rehabilitation, to support returning to sport following ACLR. METHOD: Participants were athletes, in contact and/or non-contact pivoting sports, who had ACLR with the goal to return to sports. Semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted 6-10 months after their ACLR; all had access to the BANG intervention. Verbatim transcripts were analysed with a qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The 19 participants were 17-30 years, mean 21.6 years (SD 3.5); 7 men and 12 women. The analysis generated three main categories. (A) Interacting with the app illustrated how, when, or why the participants engaged with the app. The app was helpful because of its varying content, the notifications served as reminders and participants stopped using the app when no longer needing it. (B) Challenging experiences with the app illustrated that the app itself came with some difficulties e.g., content not appearing with the right timing and material not tailored to their sport. (C) Supportive experiences with the app reflected how the app facilitated the participants' rehabilitation progress; it included positive aspects of the app content and navigation, boosting their confidence to return to sport, and motivated them to continue with rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the interviews illustrates athletes' awareness in interacting with, and the challenging and supportive experiences of using the app. The BANG app might provide support for returning to sport, primarily psychological support, as an adjunct to regular physiotherapy-guided rehabilitation. Athletes' experiences of the BANG app could be improved by healthcare professionals providing additional advice about when to use which content and why. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03959215. Registered 22 May 2019.

What's in a Name? Introducing Movement Science Media: The JOSPT Community's Guide to Quality Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Content.

SYNOPSIS: The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy was first published in the summer of 1979 by the Orthopaedic and Sports Sections of the American Physical Therapy Association. The journal's mission was to publish scientifically rigorous content and promote its application to movement-related health. In 1979, we were focused solely on 1 journal, and the publishing organization shared the journal's name. In the decades since, our organization has grown such that it now publishes 3 peer-reviewed journals and provides plenty of additional resources to help the musculoskeletal rehabilitation community translate quality research to quality practice. We are pleased to reintroduce ourselves as Movement Science Media. We aspire to deliver your one-stop shop for trustworthy content-helping you stay informed about the latest in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12209.

Minimal important difference, patient acceptable symptom state and longitudinal validity of oxford elbow score and the quickDASH in patients with tennis elbow.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford Elbow Score (OES) and the short version of Disabilities of Arms, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) are common patient-reported outcomes for people with elbow problems. Our primary objective was to define thresholds for the Minimal Important Difference (MID) and Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the OES and QuickDASH. The secondary aim was to compare the longitudinal validity of these outcome measures. METHODS: We recruited 97 patients with clinically-diagnosed tennis elbow for a prospective observational cohort study in a pragmatic clinical setting. Fifty-five participants received no specific intervention, 14 underwent surgery (11 as primary treatment and 4 during follow-up), and 28 received either botulinum toxin injection or platelet rich plasma injection. We collected OES (0 to 100, higher is better) and QuickDASH (0 to 100, higher is worse), and global rating of change (as an external transition anchor question) at six weeks, three months, six months and 12 months. We defined MID and PASS values using three approaches. To assess the longitudinal validity of the measures, we calculated the Spearman's correlation coefficient between the change in the outcome scores and external transition anchor question, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) from a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. To assess signal-to-noise ratio, we calculated standardized response means. RESULTS: Depending on the method, MID values ranged from 16 to 21 for OES Pain; 10 to 17 for OES Function; 14 to 28 for OES Social-psychological; 14 to 20 for OES Total score, and - 7 to -9 for QuickDASH. Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cut offs were 74 to 84 for OES Pain; 88 to 91 for OES Function; 75 to 78 with OES Social-psychological; 80 to 81 with OES Total score and 19 to 23 with Quick-DASH. OES had stronger correlations with the anchor items, and AUC values suggested superior discrimination (between improved and not improved) compared with QuickDASH. OES also had superior signal-to-noise ratio compared with QuickDASH. CONCLUSION: The study provides MID and PASS values for OES and QuickDASH. Due to better longitudinal validity, OES may be a better choice for clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02425982 (first registered April 24, 2015).

Can we really say getting stronger makes your tendon feel better? No current evidence of a relationship between change in Achilles tendinopathy pain or disability and changes in Triceps Surae structure or function when completing rehabilitation: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Determine if improvements in pain and disability in patients with mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy relate to changes in muscle structure and function whilst completing exercise rehabilitation. DESIGN: A systematic review exploring the relationship between changes in pain/disability and muscle structure/function over time, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: Six online databases and the grey literature were searched from database inception to 16th December 2022 whereas clinical trial registries were searched from database inception to 11th February 2020. We included clinical studies where participants received exercise rehabilitation (±placebo interventions) for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy if pain/disability and Triceps Surae structure/function were measured. We calculated Cohen's d (95 % confidence intervals) for changes in muscle structure/function over time for individual studies. Data were not pooled due to heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for synthesis. No studies reported the relationship between muscle structure/function and pain/disability changes. Twelve studies reported muscle structure/function outcome measures at baseline and at least one follow-up time-point. Three studies reported improvements in force output after treatment; eight studies demonstrated no change in structure or function; one study did not provide a variation measure, precluding within group change over time calculation. All studies were low quality. CONCLUSIONS: No studies explored the relationship between changes in tendon pain and disability and changes in muscle structure and function. It is unclear whether current exercise-based rehabilitation protocols for mid-portion Achilles tendinopathy improve muscle structure or function. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020149970).

Introducing JOSPT Open: An Inclusive Journal to Support the Work of a Diverse Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Community.

SYNOPSIS: This editorial introduces JOSPT Open, a new gold open-access journal in the JOSPT stable. In 2023, JOSPT Open will publish its inaugural issue. The journal aims to cover all aspects of musculoskeletal rehabilitation and associated areas related to musculoskeletal health, including clinical biomechanics, diagnostic imaging, epidemiology, physical activity, sports science, and pain neuroscience. JOSPT Open welcomes diverse approaches to studying interesting and important clinical questions, and innovative approaches to translating knowledge to practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(2):52-54. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11769.

Physical Demands of Tennis Across the Different Court Surfaces, Performance Levels and Sexes: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tennis is a multidirectional high-intensity intermittent sport for male and female individuals played across multiple surfaces. Although several studies have attempted to characterise the physical demands of tennis, a meta-analysis is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe and synthesise the physical demands of tennis across the different court surfaces, performance levels and sexes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to 19 April, 2022. A backward citation search was conducted for included articles using Scopus. The PECOS framework was used to formulate eligibility criteria. POPULATION: tennis players of regional, national or international playing levels (juniors and adults). EXPOSURE: singles match play. Comparison: sex (male/female), court surface (hard, clay, grass). OUTCOME: duration of play, on-court movement and stroke performance. STUDY DESIGN: cross-sectional, longitudinal. Pooled means or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation was performed. The measures of heterogeneity were Cochrane Q and 95% prediction intervals. Subgroup analysis was used for different court surfaces. RESULTS: The literature search generated 7736 references; 64 articles were included for qualitative and 42 for quantitative review. Mean [95% confidence interval] rally duration, strokes per rally and effective playing time on all surfaces were 5.5 s [4.9, 6.3], 4.1 [3.4, 5.0] and 18.6% [15.8, 21.7] for international male players and 6.4 s [5.4, 7.6], 3.9 [2.4, 6.2] and 20% [17.3, 23.3] for international female players. Mean running distances per point, set and match were 9.6 m [7.6, 12.2], 607 m [443, 832] and 2292 m [1767, 2973] (best-of-5) for international male players and 8.2 m [4.4, 15.2], 574 m [373, 883] and 1249 m [767, 2035] for international female players. Mean first- and second-serve speeds were 182 km·h-1 [178, 187] and 149 km·h-1 [135, 164] for international male players and 156 km·h-1 95% confidence interval [151, 161] and 134 km·h-1 [107, 168] for international female players. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study provide a comprehensive summary of the physical demands of tennis. These results may guide tennis-specific training programmes. We recommend more consistent measuring and reporting of data to enable future meta-analysts to pool meaningful data. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was registered a priori at the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MDWFY ).

Community consensus on core open science practices to monitor in biomedicine.

The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.