Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance

Clare L. Ardern, Fionn Büttner, Renato Andrade, Adam Weir, Maureen C. Ashe, Sinead Holden, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Eamonn Delahunt, H. Paul Dijkstra, Stephanie Mathieson, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Guus Reurink, Catherine Sherrington, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Bill Vicenzino, Jackie L. Whittaker, Alexis A. Wright, Mike Clarke, David Moher, Matthew J. PageKarim M. Khan, Marinus Winters

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

41 Citations (Scopus)


Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)175-195
Number of pages21
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2022


  • evaluation
  • implementation
  • meta-analysis
  • methodology

Cite this