CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmaceutical industry and healthcareDoping in Sports

The evidence underpinning sports performance products: a systematic assessment

Open access
Heneghan, Carl, Howick, Jeremy, O'Neill, Braden, Gill, Peter J, Lasserson, Daniel S, Cohen, Deborah, Davis, Ruth, Ward, Alison +3 more·2012·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001702PMC PMC3401829
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: To assess the extent and nature of claims regarding improved sports performance made by advertisers for a broad range of sports-related products, and the quality of the evidence on which these claims are based. Methods: The authors analysed magazine adverts and associated websites of a broad range of sports products. The authors searched for references supporting the performance and/or recovery claims of these products. The authors critically appraised the methods in the retrieved references by assessing the level of evidence and the risk of bias. The authors also collected information on the included participants, adverse events, study limitations, the primary outcome of interest and whether the intervention had been retested. Results: The authors viewed 1035 web pages and identified 431 performance-enhancing claims for 104 different products. The authors found 146 references that underpinned these claims. More than half (52.8%) of the websites that made performance claims did not provide any references, and the authors were unable to perform critical appraisal for approximately half (72/146) of the identified references. None of the references referred to systematic reviews (level 1 evidence). Of the critically appraised studies, 84% were judged to be at high risk of bias. Randomisation was used in just over half of the studies (58.1%), allocation concealment was only clear in five (6.8%) studies; and blinding of the investigators, outcome assessors or participants was only clearly reported as used in 20 (27.0%) studies. Only three of the 74 (2.7%) studies were judged to be of high quality and at low risk of bias. Conclusions: The current evidence is not of sufficient quality to inform the public about the benefits and harms of sports products. There is a need to improve the quality and reporting of research, a move towards using systematic review evidence to inform decisions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001702

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current recommendations for refueling after exercise can be misleading, in particular for recreational athletes who are targeted by commercial marketing.

    “Current recommendations for refueling after exercise can be misleading, in particular for recreational athletes who are targeted by commercial marketing (Heneghan et al. 2012; Zytnick et al. 2015).”

    From Males and females exhibit similar muscle glycogen recovery with varied recovery food sources (2020) · cites this paper as Heneghan et al. 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [10]Jeremy Howick IC Paul G Greenhalgh T; OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence 2011 30th May 2012. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
  2. [37]Hopkins W Research designs: choosing and fine-tuning a design for your study. Sport Science 2008; 12: 12– 21

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heneghan, C., Howick, J., O'Neill, B., Gill, P. J., Lasserson, D. S., Cohen, D., Davis, R., Ward, A., Smith, A., Jones, G., & Thompson, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Heneghan, Carl
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
e001702
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001702
PMC
PMC3401829
OpenAlex
W2167412854
Cited by
48
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Doping in Sports
Keywords
quality of evidence, risk of bias, reporting quality, systematic reviews, critical appraisal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review