Research Project (systematic review) Long term cognitive and neuropsychiatric consequences of repetitive concussion in contact sports

 

Start from here …

Fifth page: Abstract (maximum 250 words)

The abstract should convey why the review is important (background), the purpose of the review (objectives), summary of     

search approach used – e.g., data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions and study appraisal (if               

applicable) (methods), summary of key findings (results), and the conclusions that can be drawn from the review alongside     wider implications.

Sixth page onwards:

The introduction should be used to provide context and a clear rationale for the proposed review. You should show that you   are familiar with previous research associated with your review by critically assessing it. You should synthesise the current state of knowledge and identify its limitations. The introduction should finish by clearly stating what the review aims to add to    the evidence base and to what extent it may address the limitations identified. 

Definitions

Overview of topic

 Briefing and backround to title

Context

Main sports ( american football, rugby, boxing )

Why it’s important

Short term concussion vs Long term

Repetitive vs first time

Helmet sports vs non helmet (technological advancements)

Head trauma 

Method  (a big chunck of word count)

This should include clear, concise thorough descriptions and justification for the search process that you used. This section should be sub-divided, where appropriate, to describe different aspects of the review. You must describe your search strategy (including databases with dates of coverage), search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening process (e.g. abstract, title, full text and who/how many individuals completed this), data extraction, how disagreement of inclusion was decided between reviewers and method of quality assessment/risk of bias (if appropriate). The methods should be written in the past passive tense. This should include clear, concise thorough descriptions and justification for the search process that you used. This section should be sub-divided, where appropriate, to describe different aspects of the review. You must describe your search strategy (including databases with dates of coverage), search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, screening process (e.g. abstract, title, full text and who/how many individuals completed this), data extraction, how disagreement of inclusion was decided between reviewers and method of quality assessment/risk of bias (if appropriate). The methods should be written in the past passive tense. 

Subheadings 

Search strategy = Databases preferably 2 different ones(PubMed, medline, sports discuss etc) , dates of coverage (dont limit ie last 10 years), dates of search

 

should be a few hundred up 800

go through all articles in an order and decide if they should be included in the sytematic review

1) remove duplicates

2) Go through titles and exclude those that are not relevent

3) Move to abstracts and excluded irrelevents

4) At this point around 30 articles left. Reads the text especially methods and discussion to determine if it fits the inclusion          criteria and look at data/ results to see if the outcome is related to there being ‘long term consequences if repetitive                  concussion in contact sports’. Reasons must be given for exclusion of articles at this point 

 Reseach question= ‘Long term effects OR consequences (repetitive OR repeated) sports Concussion’ 

(if you feel you can improve or want to change the question and make your own chart please do)

-excel chart made which is uploaded below (csvlongterm..) with coloumns for ‘screenig process’ 

– put a ‘0’ for exclusion of article or a ‘1’ for inclusion next to the article under each screening process heading

– after each screening click arrow next to sub heading to only show ‘1s’ 

– For ‘abstracts’ and ‘full text’ type in the ‘DOI’ in google scholar or pubmed to read article. exclude any reviews ie sytematic    and literature

– reasons given afrer full text for exclusion

-PRISMA flow diagram 

-Summary table of studies included in Systematic review with headings (eg participants, outcomes, etc)

-assesment of study quality using PEDro scale  can be made as a table with a score out of 10 or 11 for each study (example    provided)

 Disscusion 

The discussion should provide a balanced summary of the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome. It should also highlight any contradictory data and provide suggestions as to how these could be addressed by future research. The results from the review should be applied to what is already known and how this review has (or has not) generated a novel perspective on the topic. This section should also discuss thelimitations at both the study and review level and the wider applicability of the review’s findings. This section should conclude with a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and the implications for future research. 

 Conclusion 

Summary of how it answers the research question (the ‘take home’ message)

Significance of the findings

Reminder of the limitations

Implications and recommendations for further research.

There should be a a lot of  refernces 

▪ Vancouver Style

▪ Numbered in text, first reference is 1

and so on

▪ List of corresponding articles in your reference list

Appendices 

if relevent 

These are generally associated with your results, but could also form part of the introduction or discussion. Ensure all tables and figures have clear legends, labels and titles. A lot of effort is needed to make your displays clear and concise. Each figure and table must have an informative title and must have a concise legend that allows the display to be understood without reference to the text. All figures and tables must be referenced in the text.