research methodology journal pdf

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 June 2020

Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19

• Mahir Fidahic 1   na1 ,
• Danijela Nujic 2 , 3   na1 ,
• Renata Runjic 4 ,
• Marta Civljak 5 ,
• Filipa Markotic 6 ,
• Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric 7 &
• Livia Puljak   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8467-6061 5  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  20 , Article number:  161 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

38 Citations

18 Altmetric

Metrics details

The research community reacted rapidly to the emergence of COVID-19. We aimed to assess characteristics of journal articles, preprint articles, and registered trial protocols about COVID-19 and its causal agent SARS-CoV-2.

We analyzed characteristics of journal articles with original data indexed by March 19, 2020, in World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 collection, articles published on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv by April 3, 2010. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of clinical trials indexed in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) by April 7, 2020.

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. The majority was published by authors from China (75%) and funded by Chinese sponsors (75%); a quarter was published in the Chinese language. Among 312 articles that self-reported study design, the most frequent were retrospective studies ( N  = 88; 28%) and case reports ( N  = 86; 28%), analyzing patients’ characteristics (38%). Median Journal Impact Factor of journals where articles were published was 5.099.

Among 1088 analyzed preprint articles, the majority came from authors affiliated in China (51%) and were funded by sources in China (46%). Less than half reported study design; the majority were modeling studies (62%), and analyzed transmission/risk/prevalence (43%).

Of the 927 analyzed registered trials, the majority were interventional (58%). Half were already recruiting participants. The location for the conduct of the trial in the majority was China ( N  = 522; 63%). The median number of planned participants was 140 (range: 1 to 15,000,000). Registered intervention trials used highly heterogeneous primary outcomes and tested highly heterogeneous interventions; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine ( N  = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine ( N  = 16; 3%).

Conclusions

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modeling studies. The diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

Peer Review reports

On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) China Country Office was informed by the Chinese authorities of a series of pneumonia cases with unknown etiology (unknown cause) in Wuhan, Hubei, China, with clinical presentations that greatly resembled viral pneumonia. The Chinese authorities have isolated a causal agent on 7 January 2020, which was identified as a new type of coronavirus (novel coronavirus, nCoV) [ 1 ], titled “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes “coronavirus disease” (COVID-19) [ 2 ].

After emerging in China, the virus has spread rapidly throughout the world. On April 29, 2020, there were 3,162,438 confirmed cases throughout the world, with 219,287 deaths due to COVID-19 [ 3 ]; these numbers were escalating rapidly day by day.

The research community has responded rapidly to this new threat to humanity. On March 19, 2020, a simple search of PubMed, using the most common terms associated with the new virus and disease (coronavirus OR COVID-19 OR COVID 19 OR SARS-CoV-2), revealed that almost 2000 such articles were published since December 1, 2019. However, cursory browsing of those articles indicated that the majority of them appeared to be editorials, news, and opinions.

This is the third coronavirus epidemic in the third millennium, after severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012; it is highly pathogenic and requires urgent action in the research community [ 4 ]. Mapping research methodology of published original studies and registered clinical trials since the outbreak of pandemic will help researchers in getting a better overview of relevant studies published thus far and how fast the research community has responded to the new health threat immediately following the outbreak.

This study aimed to identify and classify published original research studies, preprint articles and registered clinical trials regarding the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, until March/April 2020, the period which would correspond to the first months following the outbreak. We did not include an earlier period because the first official report about the new disease was submitted to the WHO on December 31, 2019 [ 1 ].

Protocol and registration

We defined protocol for this review prospectively and, for transparency, the protocol was published on Open Science Framework (OSF), URL: https://osf.io/dzvxc/ after the final draft of the protocol was endorsed by all co-authors, and before the commencement of any work.

Eligibility criteria

We included original studies of any study design that reported original data related to the virus SARS-CoV-2 and disease it causes, COVID-19, from December 1, 2019, onwards. We searched for records without language restrictions. We excluded articles reporting editorials, news, opinions, and other types of articles that did not report original research data. All excluded articles were tabulated, with references, and reasons for exclusion. We included articles posted on preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv, as well as registered protocols of clinical trials about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19.

Information sources

To retrieve published original studies, we used publicly available WHO Database of publications on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) [ 5 ]. The WHO has created this Database based on searches of bibliographic databases and hand-searching of tables of contents of relevant journals, as well as other scientific articles that came to their attention [ 5 ]. We conducted a separate initial search of MEDLINE using common keywords related to COVID-19 (coronavirus OR COVID-19 OR COVID 19 OR SARS-CoV-2), and we found a similar number of records as presented in the WHO database. We downloaded the full database in Excel and EndNote format on March 19, 2020.

We downloaded a list of preprint articles published in medRxiv and bioRxiv on April 3, 2020. The download was made via web site of the medRxiv ( https://www.medrxiv.org/ ), where there is a link to „COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv“. We accessed registered protocols of clinical trials from the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on April 7, 2020. For both preprint articles and clinical trial registrations we did not conduct any searches, as these information sources had pre-curated collections devoted to COVID-19, and they do not publish other types of content. Two authors screened preprint articles and clinical trial registrations to make sure they were about COVID-19.

Selection of sources of evidence

For published articles, two review authors screened all records (titles/abstracts) retrieved from the WHO Database. For each record, they noted their opinion on whether the study was eligible or not, and if not what was the reason (not related to the topic, not an original study report). We retrieved full texts of eligible or potentially eligible studies and two review authors independently screened them. For each full text, reviewers recorded their opinion about study eligibility, and reasons for exclusion (not related to the topic, not an original study report). Disagreements between reviewers in the second screening phase, evaluating full texts, were resolved via discussion or involvement of other authors. For preprint articles and registered clinical trials, one author verified their eligibility because they were downloaded from curated collections dedicated to COVID-19.

Data charting process

For published studies, one review author extracted the data and another author verified data extraction. Disagreements were resolved via discussion, or involvement of the third author if necessary. We extracted the following data, related to characteristics of articles and journals, in a standardized format for each eligible study: date of publication, journal, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for the year 2018, country of the authors’ affiliation (whole count method was used, whereas each country was counted once, regardless of the number of authors from an individual country), unit of analysis (humans, animal models, etc.) study aim, number of authors, self-reported study design, a thematic group in line with categories used by The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) [ 6 ], information about study funding, study sponsor name, study sponsor country. We classified all studies into three groups based on study design: observational, experimental, and evidence synthesis. For studies in languages other than English, we used Google Translate, as it has been shown that it is a viable, accurate tool for data extraction from non-English articles used in evidence syntheses [ 7 ]. For any uncertainties, we planned to contact native speakers of languages other than English. This was necessary only regarding an article in Persian.

For preprint articles, we extracted the following data: title, DOI, link to online article, abstract, number of authors, country of affiliation (using the whole country method), self-reported study design, a thematic group in line with categories used by EPPI-Centre [ 6 ], information about study funding, study sponsor name, study sponsor country.

For registered protocols, we analyzed the following data: clinical trial registry where the protocol was primarily registered, recruitment status, minimal and maximal age of participants, sex of eligible participants, self-reported study type, a location where the study will be conducted, and primary outcome.

Synthesis of results

We analyzed data using descriptive statistics, frequencies, and percentages.

Articles with original data published in scholarly journals

Among the first 2118 articles on COVID-19 published in scholarly journals, 533 (25%) contained original data. We have excluded 1585 articles for the following reasons: not original research ( N  = 1386), duplicate articles ( N  = 118), unrelated to the topic ( N  = 56), correction ( N  = 18), preprint server publication ( N  = 4), study protocol ( N  = 2), and retraction ( N  = 1). The list of analyzed and the list of excluded studies is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The first article was published on January 21, 2020. The majority of articles were published in English ( N  = 401; 75%); a quarter was published in Chinese ( N  = 131; 24%), and one article was published in Persian.

The median number of authors was 7 (range: 1 to 63). Articles were published in 207 different journals. The highest number of articles was published in the Journal of Virology ( N  = 33; 6.1%) (Table  1 ). For 377 articles published in journals with a JIF, the median JIF was 5.099 (range: 0.364 to 70.670).

The median number of countries in the authors’ affiliations was 1 (range: 1 to 9). Authors from 48 countries authored the articles, the majority of affiliations were from China ( N  = 402; 75%), followed by the USA ( N  = 62; 12%) (Table 1 ).

In 312 (58%) journal articles, authors self-reported study design. The most common self-reported study designs were retrospective study ( N  = 88; 28%) and case report ( N  = 86; 28%) (Table 1 ). Our classification of articles in three major groups showed that there were 503 (94%) observational studies, 19 (4%) evidence syntheses of various types, and 11 (2%) experimental studies.

Among the 533 articles, 456 were in the EPPI-Centre living map of evidence; the majority were classified as case reports ( N  = 173; 38%) (Table 1 ). In 381 (71%) articles unit of analyses were humans; in the majority ( N  = 236; 62%) only adults were included. Declaration about study funding was reported in 324 (60%) of the journal articles; among those, there were 268 (83%) articles that reported that the study received funding. Sponsors were most commonly from China ( N  = 202; 75%) (Table 1 ).

Preprint articles

From the exported 1102 preprint articles we excluded 4 that were withdrawn and 10 that were about SARS and MERS; we included the remaining 1088 preprint articles in the analysis. The list of analyzed preprint articles is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The majority was posted on medRxiv (Table  2 ). The first preprint article on COVID-19 was posted on bioRxiv on January 19, 2020; it reported a mathematical model of transmission of the novel virus [ 8 ], the first article was posted on medRxiv on January 24, 2020; it reported early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions regarding the novel virus [ 9 ].

The median number of authors was 7 (range: 1 to 178). The most common country in the authors’ affiliations was China (51%) (Table 2 ). In 494 (45%) preprint articles, authors self-reported study design. The most common self-reported study design was a modeling study (Table 2 ).

The most frequent thematic classification of the preprint articles was transmission/risk/prevalence (43%; Table 2 ). Study funding was reported in 681 (63%) of the preprint articles. The majority of funders were from China and the USA (Table 2 ).

Registered clinical trials

By April 7, 2020, there were 927 clinical trials indexed on WHO ICTRP. The list of analyzed registered trials is available on OSF ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). The first trial was indexed on January 27, 2020. The majority ( N  = 581; 63%) of trials were primarily registered on the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR), followed by ClinicalTrials.gov ( N  = 286; 30%). Few trials were primarily registered with other platforms (Table  3 ).

Recruitment status was available for 915 (99%) of registered protocols, and among them about half were either “not recruiting” or “recruiting” (Table 3 ). None of the trials retrieved from WHO ICTRP were labeled as “withdrawn” in the recruitment status. However, 38 (4%) of protocols were labeled as “Cancelled” in the name of the study; all these protocols were indexed primarily in ChiCTR.

In 744 trials, the minimal age of participants was specified. In the majority, the minimal age of participants was 18 years ( N  = 532; 72%) (Table 3 ). In 663 trials, information about the maximum age of participants was provided. In about a third of them ( N  = 197; 30%), it was specified that there was no upper age limit (Table 3 ). In 921 protocols there was information about the inclusion of participants based on sex; the majority ( N  = 892; 97%) reported they will include both men and women (Table 3 ).

The majority of registered trials were described as interventional ( N  = 535; 58%), followed by descriptor “observational” ( N  = 322; 35%) (Table 3 ). Among registered “trials”, there were even 7 that were described as “basic science” (Table 3 ).

The median number of planned study participants was 140 (range above zero: 1 to 15,000,000). For eight protocols, the planned number of participants in the WHO ICTRP data was zero; we checked web sites of all those protocols and found that five of them were from ClinicalTrials.gov where they were labeled as withdrawn, the remaining three were from ChiCTR, whereas one had information about the number of patients in the wrong field, but the remaining two did not have any explanation for zero number of patients.

Five protocols did not have any information about the number of participants; two were canceled protocols from ChiCTR, two were protocols labeled as “Expanded access status” in ClinicalTrials.gov , and we were unable to verify the fifth because the web link was not functional. In interventional studies, the median number of planned participants was 108 (range from 1 to 55,000), while in the observational median was 200 (range from 8 to 15,000,000). Three protocols reported that the planned number of participants was higher than one million.

In 825 registrations, the location, where the trial will be conducted, was reported. Only 20 (2.4%) reported that the trial will be conducted in more than one country. Most of the trials for which it was reported they will be conducted in a single location were located in China ( N  = 522; 63%), followed by the United States ( N  = 33; 4%) (Table 3 ).

In 535 trial protocols described as interventional, 532 (99%) provided information about the primary outcome. Most of the protocols ( N  = 260; 49%) had multiple primary outcomes that were not described as composite. In studies with a single or composite primary outcome ( N  = 272), highly heterogeneous primary outcomes were used (details about registered trials are available on OSF; https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ). Few outcomes were used more commonly. The most commonly used outcome was time to recovery, used in 40 (15%) protocols, and phrased differently such as “time to clinical recovery”, “time to clinical improvement”, “time to disease recovery”, “time to remission”, “clinical recovery time”, etc. The second most common outcome was mortality, found in 23 (8.4%) protocols with a single or composite primary outcome, described variously as mortality, all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, or mortality at certain time points (28 days, 30 days, 60 days).

In registered trials of interventions, various heterogeneous interventions were tested; the most frequently studied interventions were hydroxychloroquine ( N  = 39; 7.2%) and chloroquine ( N  = 16; 3%) (Table 3 ).

The research community has responded swiftly to COVID-19 in terms of scholarly dissemination output. The earliest date of onset of COVID-19 symptoms was reported as December 1, 2020 [ 10 ], and December 8, 2019 [ 11 ]. Our study shows that within about 3 months since the earliest reported date of onset of symptoms, more than two thousand articles were published in scholarly journals, a quarter of which had original data. Within 4 months from the public announcement [ 11 ] about the new disease, 1100 preprint articles were published and almost 1000 clinical trials registered.

The majority of studies came from China, which is understandable, as the disease originated there. Thus, Chinese scientists had a head start in exploring the disease. The majority of the first studies with original data, that were published in scholarly journals, had observational study design, which is understandable, as interventional studies usually take more time to be completed. However, the research community has responded rapidly with designing and registering clinical trials on COVID-19.

Even though the majority of journal articles with original data were published in English, a quarter was published in the Chinese language; this is concerning because those manuscripts may likely have valuable data, but they will be difficult to read and access by an audience that does not speak Chinese. Furthermore, this may prove challenging for conducting evidence syntheses; if the authors conducting systematic reviews and similar studies are unable to access or translate studies published in Chinese, those studies may not be included in evidence syntheses, thus contributing to biased evidence syntheses. Some authors of evidence syntheses deliberately upfront exclude articles published in languages other than English [ 12 ]; our results indicate that this may not be advisable in the evidence syntheses about COVID-19.

The median JIF of published articles was 5.099, which is rather high; it indicates that early articles were published in many high-impact journals, even if they described case reports, or case series, because of the novelty of the disease. It is likely that those journals were also able to accommodate submissions about COVID-19 quickly and organize rapid peer-review, and that those were journals with short turnaround times; journals with professional staff would be in a better position to adapt quickly to publishing novel topic of interest, compared to journals depending on volunteer staff.

While the majority of early articles about COVID-19 in scholarly journals were observational, mostly case reports, the predominant type of early articles about COVID-19 articles published on preprint servers included modeling studies. This might be early view of studies that will be soon published in peer-reviewed journals, but it remains to be seen how many of those preprint articles will actually pass the scrutiny of peer-review. It is possible that the massive production of modeling studies is leading to difficulties with publishing them, and that authors post those studies on a preprint server, to make their work publicly available. A large number of articles on preprint servers that we analyzed could be due to calls for authors to make their work publicly available in preprint servers along with submitting articles to peer-reviewed scholarly journals; there were even suggestions that submission to a preprint should be the default for all submissions [ 13 ].

The majority of registered trials we analyzed were registered in the Chinese registry of clinical trials, which is contrary to the report that ClinicalTrials.gov contains most of the global trial registrations [ 14 ], also, the overwhelming majority of registered trials we analyzed were conducted in China.

Although the aim of this study was not an in-depth analysis of outcomes and interventions that were used in registered trials about COVID-19, our analysis of those trials indicates both the novelty of the disease as well as methodological shortcomings. For example, the majority of registered trials of interventions specified more than one primary outcome; a clinical trial should have one primary outcome, or a combination of co-primary outcomes, but not multiple primary outcomes because primary outcomes are the basis for a sample size estimation. Primary outcomes and outcome measures were very different. Outcomes used in these trials should be used for informing the development of a core outcome set (COS) for COVID-19. It is possible that trialists used multiple primary outcomes that were treated as exploratory due to the early phase of the pandemic.

Various initiatives were already set up to start defining a COS for COVID-19. At least one article about COS-COVID has already been published [ 15 ], and multiple initiatives for developing COS for COVID-19 were registered on the web site of the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative [ 16 ].

Many trials mentioned “standard therapy” or “conventional therapy”, and it would be interesting to further investigate what is considered a standard or conventional therapy for a completely new disease with no approved interventions by regulatory agencies. Furthermore, more than 10% of analyzed registered intervention trials were testing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, therapies that have been suggested as effective for COVID-19, and that have raised controversies [ 17 ].

Accumulation of evidence on COVID-19 is not without challenges. There are particular methodological challenges related to analyzing COVID-19 data during the pandemic [ 18 ]. A major challenge is also timely evidence synthesis of the rapidly accumulating data and methodological sacrifices that are being made along the way. Multiple evidence synthesis organizations are now offering evidence collections, investing duplicate effort into similar activities [ 19 ]. Overview of systematic reviews published until March 24 indicated that the majority of systematic reviews on COVID-19 available by that date were of critically low methodological quality [ 20 ]. Hopefully, research collaborations will be set up to reduce the multiplication of effort in terms of synthesizing and appraising COVID-19 evidence [ 19 ].

Early initiatives are evolving and improving along the way. We used WHO collection of evidence on COVID-19, and among the excluded studies there were 4 that were not published in scholarly journals; instead, they were published on a preprint server chemRxiv. Similarly, we have used classification of EPPI-Centre for categorizing analyzed articles into thematic areas; along the way we noticed that the number of articles in their collection had decreased, indicating that they are likely better in curating their content in the living map of evidence [ 6 ].

In future studies, it would be worthwhile to continue exploring the growth and characteristics of further studies regarding COVID-19; to analyze how many of the preprint articles will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and how many registered trials will be completed. The resolution of the COVID-19 pandemic is difficult to predict, and this may hinder plans for clinical trials. For countries that may be very successful in their lockdown and quarantine efforts, reduction of the number of infected and diseased patients may prevent the completion of registered clinical trials. Thus, it would be interesting to monitor how many of the registered trials will be terminated prematurely, or will not even begin.

However, in comparison to the past coronavirus epidemics (SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV), the scientific community appears to be much more involved. We were unable to find bibliometric studies comparable to ours about the volume of research considering SARS and MERS, but the simple PubMed search reveals that researchers were much less productive even in the first year after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV first emerged. Namely, the number of articles from November 1, 2002, to November 1, 2003, and from April 1, 2012, to April 1, 2013, was 611 and 561, respectively.

A limitation of our study is a different search date for the three sources of information we analyzed. However, these sources have major differences in the export functionalities and amount/type of data they provide, and that need to be screened or analyzed. Our analysis of articles published in journal articles took longer time compared to the analysis of preprint articles and registered trials because we needed to conduct screening and analysis about whether those articles contained original data, a quarter of those articles were published in Chinese, and many of those articles were difficult to retrieve from Chinese journals. We are aware that with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, research output is fast increasing, but we aimed to analyze early research output, published between 3 and 4 months from the emergence of the new disease.

Furthermore, we did not analyse whether perhaps multiple publications referred to the same dataset. Also, for the translation of non-English articles, we used Google Translate, as it has been shown in 2019 that this tool can be trusted for data extraction in evidence synthesis [ 7 ]. One Persian article was additionally clarified through consultation with a native speaker; other languages that are not English were easily translated using Google Translate.

Early articles on COVID-19 were predominantly retrospective case reports and modelling studies. Many clinical trials about COVID-19 were registered, but it remains to be seen whether they will be completed due to unpredictable development of the pandemic and changes in the number of infected individuals. Diversity of outcomes used in intervention trial protocols indicates the urgent need for defining a core outcome set for COVID-19 research. Chinese scholars had a head start in reporting about the new disease, but publishing articles in Chinese may limit their global reach. Mapping publications with original data can help finding gaps that will help us respond better to the new public health emergency.

Availability of data and materials

Raw data collected and analyzed within this study are publicly available on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dzvxc/ ).

Abbreviations

Core outcome measures in effectiveness trials

Journal impact factor

Open science framework

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

World health organization

World health organization international clinical trials registry platform

Coronavirus disease 2019

World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus - China. URL: https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

World Health Organization. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease- (covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it. Accessed 18 June 2020.

Worldometer. COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. URL: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Civljak R, Markotic A, Kuzman I. The third coronavirus epidemic in the third millennium: what's next? Croat Med J. 2020;61(1):1–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Database of publications on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov . Accessed 18 June 2020.

EPPI Centre. COVID-19: a living systematic map of the evidence. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Projects/DepartmentofHealthandSocialCare/Publishedreviews/COVID-19Livingsystematicmapoftheevidence/tabid/3765/Default.aspx . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, Choi A, Fournier JP, Geier AK, Jacquerioz F, Kogan D, Scholcoff C, Sun R. The accuracy of Google translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(9):677–9.

Chen TF, Rui J, Weng Q, Zhao Z, Cui J, Yin L: A mathematical model for simulating the transmission of Wuhan novel Coronavirus. bioRxiv 2020.01.19.911669; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.19.911669 . 2020.

Read JM, Bridgen JRE, Cummings DAT, Ho A, Jewell CP: Novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV: early estimation of epidemiological parameters and epidemic predictions. medRxiv 2020.01.23.20018549; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.23.20018549 . 2020.

Wu YC, Chen CS, Chan YJ. The outbreak of COVID-19: an overview. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA. 2020;83(3):217–20.

World Health Organization. Novel coronavirus - China. January 12, 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ .

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(8):iii ix-xi, 1-193.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Eisen MB, Akhmanova A, Behrens TE, Weigel D. Publishing in the time of COVID-19. Elife. 2020;9.

Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Rajakannan T. Update on trial registration 11 years after the ICMJE policy was established. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):383–91.

Jin X, Pang B, Zhang J, Liu Q, Yang Z, Feng J, Liu X, Zhang L, Wang B, Huang Y, et al. Core outcome set for clinical trials on coronavirus disease 2019 (COS-COVID). Engineering (Beijing). 2020.

COMET. Core outcome set developers’ response to COVID-19 (15th April 2020). Available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1538 .

Retraction Watch. Elsevier investigating hydroxychloroquine-COVID-19 paper. Available at: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/04/12/elsevier-investigating-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-paper/ . Accessed 18 June 2020.

Wolkewitz M, Puljak L. Methodological challenges of analysing COVID-19 data during the pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):81.

Ruano J, Gomez F, Pieper D, Puljak L. What evidence-based medicine researchers can do to help clinicians fighting COVID-2019? J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.015 .

Borges do Nascimento IJ, O'Mathuna DP, von Groote TC, Abdulazeem HM, Weerasekara I, Marusic A, Puljak L, Tassoni Civile V, Zakarija-Grkovic I, Poklepovic Pericic T et al: coronavirus disease (covid-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews. medRxiv 2020.04.16.20068213; doi: https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20068213 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Dr. Antonia Jelicic Kadic for her help with data extraction for articles published in scholarly journals.

No extramural funding.

Author information

Mahir Fidahic and Danijela Nujic contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Medicine, University of Tuzla, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mahir Fidahic

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Osijek, Croatia

Danijela Nujic

Department of Public Health, Humanities and Social Sciences in Biomedicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health, Osijek, Croatia

University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Renata Runjic

Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

Marta Civljak & Livia Puljak

Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices, Zagreb, Croatia

Filipa Markotic

Department of Epidemiology, Croatian National Institute of Public Health, Zagreb, Croatia

Zvjezdana Lovric Makaric

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: LP. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP. Writing of the manuscript and revising the manuscript for intellectual content: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP. Final approval of the manuscript: MF, DN, RR, MC, FM, ZLM, LP.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia Puljak .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable. This study did not involve human participants. We analyzed publicly available information from scholarly journals and public web sites with preprint articles and registered clinical trials.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Livia Puljak is Section Editor of the BMC Medical Research Methodology. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fidahic, M., Nujic, D., Runjic, R. et al. Research methodology and characteristics of journal articles with original data, preprint articles and registered clinical trial protocols about COVID-19. BMC Med Res Methodol 20 , 161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2

Download citation

Received : 01 May 2020

Accepted : 10 June 2020

Published : 22 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01047-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Coronavirus
• Original research
• Clinical trial

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search this journal
• Search all journals
• View access options
• View profile
• Create profile

Add email alerts

You are adding the following journal to your email alerts

Empowering Education: Unraveling the Factors and Paths to Enhance Project-Based Learning Among Chinese College Students

Plain language summary, introduction, theoretical model and research assumptions, methodology, acknowledgments, ethical approval, declaration of conflicting interests, data availability statement, supplementary material, cite article, share options, information, rights and permissions, metrics and citations, figures and tables.

Questionnaire Design and Pre-Survey

Data collection and analysis, reliability and validity test, descriptive statistical analysis.

Impact of Demographic Variables on Project-Based Learning Outcomes

Structural Equation Model Analysis

Comprehensive Benefits of Project-Based Learning

Disciplinary and institutional variances in project-based learning outcomes, the role of teacher guidance, student involvement, and college support in pbl, significance of student self-efficacy in pbl.

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License , all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

• sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241276600.docx

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share this article

Share with email, share on social media, share access to this article.

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information

Published in.

• college students
• project-based learning

Rights and permissions

Affiliations, journals metrics.

This article was published in SAGE Open .

Article usage *

Total views and downloads: 0

* Article usage tracking started in December 2016

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score. Learn more about the Altmetric Scores

Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures & Media

View options, view options, access options.

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

I am signed in as:

I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.

Login failed. Please check you entered the correct user name and password.

Access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional or society access and free tools such as email alerts and saved searches.

loading institutional access options

Click the button below for the full-text content

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Also from Sage

• CQ Library Elevating debate opens in new tab
• Sage Data Uncovering insight opens in new tab
• Sage Business Cases Shaping futures opens in new tab
• Sage Campus Unleashing potential opens in new tab
• Sage Knowledge Multimedia learning resources opens in new tab
• Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab
• Sage Video Streaming knowledge opens in new tab
• Technology from Sage Library digital services opens in new tab

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The effect of blood flow restriction during low-load resistance training unit on knee flexor muscle fatigue in recreational athletes: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled pilot study.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. ethical considerations, 2.2. study design, 2.3. participants, 2.4. knee flexor muscle maximal isometric torque measurements, 2.5. local muscle fatigue assessment, 2.6. occurrence of adverse events, 2.7. blood flow restriction, 2.8. low-load restriction training, 2.9. statistical analysis, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Cognetti, D.J.; Sheean, A.J.; Owens, J.G. Blood Flow Restriction Therapy and Its Use for Rehabilitation and Return to Sport: Physiology, Application, and Guidelines for Implementation. Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 2022 , 4 , e71–e76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Huang, J.; Park, H.Y. Effect of blood flow restriction with low-intensity resistance training in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Phys. Act. Nutr. 2024 , 28 , 7–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hughes, L.; Paton, B.; Rosenblatt, B.; Gissane, C.; Patterson, S.D. Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017 , 51 , 1003–1011. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Centner, C.; Wiegel, P.; Gollhofer, A.; König, D. Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Muscular Strength and Hypertrophy in Older Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2019 , 49 , 95–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lixandrão, M.E.; Ugrinowitsch, C.; Berton, R.; Vechin, F.C.; Conceição, M.S.; Damas, F.; Libardi, C.A.; Roschel, H. Magnitude of Muscle Strength and Mass Adaptations Between High-Load Resistance Training Versus Low-Load Resistance Training Associated with Blood-Flow Restriction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2018 , 48 , 361–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slysz, J.; Stultz, J.; Burr, J.F. The efficacy of blood flow restricted exercise: A systematic review & meta-analysis. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2016 , 19 , 669–675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Formiga, M.F.; Fay, R.; Hutchinson, S.; Locandro, N.; Ceballos, A.; Lesh, A.; Buscheck, J.; Meanor, J.; Owens, J.G.; Cahalin, L.P. Effect of aerobic exercise training with and without blood flow restriction on aerobic capacity in healthy young adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2020 , 15 , 175–187. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuan, S.; Zhu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Lei, S.; Wang, X.; Li, J. Enhancing lower limb and core muscle activation with blood flow restriction training: A randomized crossover study on high-intensity squat exercises. Front. Physiol. 2024 , 15 , 1436441. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hwang, P.S.; Willoughby, D.S. Mechanisms Behind Blood Flow-Restricted Training and its Effect Toward Muscle Growth. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019 , 33 (Suppl. S1), S167–S179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fraca-Fernández, E.; Ceballos-Laita, L.; Hernández-Lázaro, H.; Jiménez-Del-Barrio, S.; Mingo-Gómez, M.T.; Medrano-de-la-Fuente, R.; Hernando-Garijo, I. Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients before and after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dong, J.; Chi, J.; Lei, E.F.; Wang, D. Effects of blood flow restriction training on aerobic capacity, lower limb muscle strength and mass in healthy adults: A meta-analysis. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2024 . Online ahead of print . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pişkin, N.E.; Yavuz, G.; Aktuğ, Z.B.; Aldhahi, M.I.; Al-Mhanna, S.B.; Gülü, M. The Effect of Combining Blood Flow Restriction with the Nordic Hamstring Exercise on Hamstring Strength: Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 2035. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amani-Shalamzari, S.; Rajabi, S.; Rajabi, H.; Gahreman, D.E.; Paton, C.; Bayati, M.; Rosemann, T.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Knechtle, B. Effects of Blood Flow Restriction and Exercise Intensity on Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Muscle Strength Adaptations in Physically Active Collegiate Women. Front. Physiol. 2019 , 10 , 810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, K.; Chee, C.S.; Abdul Kahar, J.; Tengku Kamalden, T.F.; Li, R.; Qian, S. Effects of blood flow restriction training on physical fitness among athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2024 , 14 , 16615. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kubo, Y.; Fujita, D.; Sugiyama, S.; Takachu, R.; Sugiura, T.; Sawada, M.; Yamashita, K.; Kobori, K.; Kobori, M. Safety and Effects of a Four-Week Preoperative Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Pre- and Postoperative Quadriceps Strength in Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Cureus 2024 , 16 , e64466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johns, W.L.; Vadhera, A.S.; Hammoud, S. Blood Flow Restriction Therapy After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2024 , 40 , 1724–1726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kamiş, O.; Gürses, V.V.; Şendur, H.N.; Altunsoy, M.; Pekel, H.A.; Yıldırım, E.; Aydos, L. Low-Load Resistance Exercise with Blood Flow Restriction Versus High-Load Resistance Exercise on Hamstring Muscle Adaptations in Recreationally Trained Men. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, Y.C.; Lo, I.P.; Tsai, Y.Y.; Zhao, C.G.; Hwang, I.S. Dual-task improvement of older adults after treadmill walking combined with blood flow restriction of low occlusion pressure: The effect on the heart-brain axis. J. NeuroEng. Rehabil. 2024 , 21 , 116. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fortin, J.F.; Billaut, F. Blood-Flow Restricted Warm-Up Alters Muscle Hemodynamics and Oxygenation during Repeated Sprints in American Football Players. Sports 2019 , 7 , 121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beak, H.J.; Park, W.; Yang, J.H.; Kim, J. Effect of Low-Intensity Aerobic Training Combined with Blood Flow Restriction on Body Composition, Physical Fitness, and Vascular Responses in Recreational Runners. Healthcare 2022 , 10 , 1789. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rudisill, S.S.; Varady, N.H.; Kucharik, M.P.; Eberlin, C.T.; Martin, S.D. Evidence-Based Hamstring Injury Prevention and Risk Factor Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am. J. Sports Med. 2023 , 51 , 1927–1942. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abe, T.; Kearns, C.F.; Sato, Y. Muscle size and strength are increased following walk training with restricted venous blood flow from the leg muscle, Kaatsu-walk training. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006 , 100 , 1460–1466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martin, P.M.; Bart, R.M.; Ashley, R.L.; Velasco, T.; Wise, S.R. An Overview of Blood Flow Restriction Physiology and Clinical Considerations. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2022 , 21 , 123–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hornikel, B.; Saffold, K.S.; Esco, M.R.; Mota, J.A.; Fedewa, M.V.; Wind, S.A.; Adams, T.L.; Winchester, L.J. Acute Responses to High-Intensity Back Squats with Bilateral Blood Flow Restriction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023 , 20 , 3555. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Tongtong, C.; Zhang, W.; Li, X. Effect of continuous and intermittent blood flow restriction deep-squat training on thigh muscle activation and fatigue levels in male handball players. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 19152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, K.; Sun, Y.; Xiao, S.; Zhang, X.; Du, Z.; Zhang, Y. Effects of High-Load Bench Press Training with Different Blood Flow Restriction Pressurization Strategies on the Degree of Muscle Activation in the Upper Limbs of Bodybuilders. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Husmann, F.; Mittlmeier, T.; Bruhn, S.; Zschorlich, V.; Behrens, M. Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise on Muscle Fatigue Development and Recovery. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2018 , 50 , 436–446. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson, K.D.; Rask, D.M.G.; Bates, T.J.; Nuelle, J.A.V. Overall Safety and Risks Associated with Blood Flow Restriction Therapy: A Literature Review. Mil. Med. 2022 , 187 , 1059–1064. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nascimento, D.d.C.; Rolnick, N.; Neto, I.V.d.S.; Severin, R.; Beal, F.L.R. A Useful Blood Flow Restriction Training Risk Stratification for Exercise and Rehabilitation. Front. Physiol. 2022 , 13 , 808622. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brandner, C.R.; May, A.K.; Clarkson, M.J.; Warmington, S.A. Reported Side-effects and Safety Considerations for the Use of Blood Flow Restriction During Exercise in Practice and Research. Tech. Orthop. 2018 , 33 , 114–121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neal, B.S.; McManus, C.J.; Bradley, W.J.; Leaney, S.F.; Murray, K.; Clark, N.C. The feasibility, safety, and efficacy of lower limb garment-integrated blood flow restriction training in healthy adults. Phys. Ther. Sport 2023 , 60 , 9–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schulz, K.F.; Altman, D.G.; Moher, D. CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010 , 152 , 726–732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abreu, F.G.; Andrade, R.; Pereira, R.; Bastos, R.; Espregueira-Mendes, J. Evaluation of the Stability and Function of the Tibiofemoral and Tibiofibular Joints. In The Art of the Musculoskeletal Physical Exam ; Lane, J.G., Gobbi, A., Espregueira-Mendes, J., Kaleka, C.C., Adachi, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 443–457. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert, L.A.; McNicholas, M. Evaluation of Range of Motion of the Tibiofemoral Joint. In The Art of the Musculoskeletal Physical Exam ; Lane, J.G., Gobbi, A., Espregueira-Mendes, J., Kaleka, C.C., Adachi, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 411–418. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azzini, G.O.M. Clinical Tests for Evaluation of Motor Function of the Knee. In The Art of the Musculoskeletal Physical Exam ; Lane, J.G., Gobbi, A., Espregueira-Mendes, J., Kaleka, C.C., Adachi, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 419–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva, L.D.; Tscholl, P.; Bastos, R.; Andrade, R.; Espregueira-Mendes, J. Evaluation of the Menisci. In The Art of the Musculoskeletal Physical Exam ; Lane, J.G., Gobbi, A., Espregueira-Mendes, J., Kaleka, C.C., Adachi, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 459–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Melick, N.; Meddeler, B.M.; Hoogeboom, T.J.; Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M.W.G.; van Cingel, R.E.H. How to determine leg dominance: The agreement between self-reported and observed performance in healthy adults. PLoS ONE 2017 , 12 , e0189876. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hermens, H.J.; Freriks, B.; Disselhorst-Klug, C.; Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2000 , 10 , 361–374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beretta Piccoli, M.; Rainoldi, A.; Heitz, C.; Wüthrich, M.; Boccia, G.; Tomasoni, E.; Spirolazzi, C.; Egloff, M.; Barbero, M. Innervation zone locations in 43 superficial muscles: Toward a standardization of electrode positioning. Muscle Nerve 2014 , 49 , 413–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Oleksy, Ł.; Czarny, W.; Bajorek, W.; Król, P.; Mika, A.; Kielnar, R. The Evaluation of Shoulder Muscle Fatigue in Volleyball Players. J. Nov. Physiother. 2018 , 8 , 2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, B. Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychol. Sch. 2007 , 44 , 423–432. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boullosa, D.; Esteve-Lanao, J.; Casado, A.; Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A.; Gomes da Rosa, R.; Del Coso, J. Factors Affecting Training and Physical Performance in Recreational Endurance Runners. Sports 2020 , 8 , 35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lacey, A.; Whyte, E.; O’Keeffe, S.; O’Connor, S.; Moran, K. Recruitment and Retention of Recreational Runners in Prospective Injury Research: A Qualitative Study. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2023 , 22 , 16094069231178278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Askling, C.M.; Tengvar, M.; Saartok, T.; Thorstensson, A. Acute first-time hamstring strains during high-speed running: A longitudinal study including clinical and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Am. J. Sports Med. 2007 , 35 , 197–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Askling, C.M.; Tengvar, M.; Saartok, T.; Thorstensson, A. Proximal hamstring strains of stretching type in different sports: Injury situations, clinical and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics, and return to sport. Am. J. Sports Med. 2008 , 36 , 1799–1804. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jack, R.A., 2nd; Lambert, B.S.; Hedt, C.A.; Delgado, D.; Goble, H.; McCulloch, P.C. Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Preserves Lower Extremity Bone and Muscle Mass After ACL Reconstruction. Sports Health 2023 , 15 , 361–371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Spada, J.M.; Paul, R.W.; Tucker, B.S. Blood Flow Restriction Training preserves knee flexion and extension torque following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review. J. Orthop. 2022 , 34 , 233–239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Charles, D.; White, R.; Reyes, C.; Palmer, D. A systematic review of the effects of blood flow restriction training on quadriceps muscle atrophy and circumference post acl reconstruction. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2020 , 15 , 882–891. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Takarada, Y.; Takazawa, H.; Ishii, N. Applications of vascular occlusion diminish disuse atrophy of knee extensor muscles. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000 , 32 , 2035–2039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iversen, E.; Røstad, V.; Larmo, A. Intermittent blood flow restriction does not reduce atrophy following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J. Sport Health Sci. 2016 , 5 , 115–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ohta, H.; Kurosawa, H.; Ikeda, H.; Iwase, Y.; Satou, N.; Nakamura, S. Low-load resistance muscular training with moderate restriction of blood flow after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2003 , 74 , 62–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Królikowska, A.; Czamara, A.; Kentel, M. Does Gracilis Tendon Harvest During ACL Reconstruction with a Hamstring Autograft Affect Torque of Muscles Responsible for Shin Rotation? Med. Sci. Monit. 2015 , 21 , 2084–2093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Czamara, A.; Królikowska, A.; Szuba, Ł.; Widuchowski, W.; Kentel, M. Single- vs. double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A new aspect of knee assessment during activities involving dynamic knee rotation. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015 , 29 , 489–499. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Czamara, A.; Szuba, Ł.; Krzemińska, A.; Tomaszewski, W.; Wilk-Frańczuk, M. Effect of physiotherapy on the strength of tibial internal rotator muscles in males after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Med. Sci. Monit. 2011 , 17 , Cr523–Cr531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Speedtsberg, M.B.; Zebis, M.K.; Lauridsen, H.B.; Magnussen, E.; Hölmich, P. Anatomical retraction of the semitendinosus muscle following harvest of the distal semitendinosus tendon for ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2022 , 30 , 1706–1710. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Von Essen, C.; McCallum, S.; Eriksson, K.; Barenius, B. Minimal graft site morbidity using autogenous semitendinosus graft from the uninjured leg: A randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2022 , 30 , 1639–1645. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krolikowska, A.; Sikorski, L.; Czamara, A.; Reichert, P. Are the knee extensor and flexor muscles isokinetic parameters affected by the duration of postoperative physiotherapy supervision in patients eight months after ACL reconstruction with the use of semitendinosus and gracilis tendons autograft? Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2018 , 20 , 89–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Loenneke, J.P.; Wilson, J.M.; Wilson, G.J.; Pujol, T.J.; Bemben, M.G. Potential safety issues with blood flow restriction training. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2011 , 21 , 510–518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prill, R.; Mouton, C.; Klugorová, J.; Królikowska, A.; Karlsson, J.; Becker, R. Implementation of evidence-based medicine in everyday clinical practice. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2023 , 31 , 3034–3036. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jønsson, A.B.; Krogh, S.; Laursen, H.S.; Aagaard, P.; Kasch, H.; Nielsen, J.F. Safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with neurological disorders: A systematic review. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2024 , 34 , e14561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Patterson, S.D.; Hughes, L.; Warmington, S.; Burr, J.; Scott, B.R.; Owens, J.; Abe, T.; Nielsen, J.L.; Libardi, C.A.; Laurentino, G.; et al. Blood Flow Restriction Exercise: Considerations of Methodology, Application, and Safety. Front. Physiol. 2019 , 10 , 533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Królikowska, A.; Kusienicka, K.; Lazarek, E.; Oleksy, Ł.; Prill, R.; Kołcz, A.; Daszkiewicz, M.; Janczak, D.; Reichert, P. A Randomized, Double-Blind Placebo Control Study on the Effect of a Blood Flow Restriction by an Inflatable Cuff Worn around the Arm on the Wrist Joint Position Sense in Healthy Recreational Athletes. J. Clin. Med. 2023 , 12 , 602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prill, R.; Królikowska, A.; de Girolamo, L.; Becker, R.; Karlsson, J. Checklists, risk of bias tools, and reporting guidelines for research in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023 , 31 , 3029–3033. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prill, R.; Królikowska, A.; Becker, R.; Karlsson, J. Why there is a need to improve evaluation standards for clinical studies in orthopaedic and sports medicine. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023 , 31 , 4–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Królikowska, A.; Reichert, P.; Karlsson, J.; Mouton, C.; Becker, R.; Prill, R. Improving the reliability of measurements in orthopaedics and sports medicine. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2023 , 31 , 5277–5285. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Madjarova, S.J.; Williams, R.J., 3rd; Nwachukwu, B.U.; Martin, R.K.; Karlsson, J.; Ollivier, M.; Pareek, A. Picking apart p values: Common problems and points of confusion. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2022 , 30 , 3245–3248. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Varady, N.H.; Pareek, A.; Eckhardt, C.M.; Williams, R.J., 3rd; Madjarova, S.J.; Ollivier, M.; Martin, R.K.; Karlsson, J.; Nwachukwu, B.U. Multivariable regression: Understanding one of medicine’s most fundamental statistical tools. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2023 , 31 , 7–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Madjarova, S.J.; Pareek, A.; Eckhardt, C.M.; Khorana, A.; Kunze, K.N.; Ollivier, M.; Karlsson, J.; Williams, R.J., 3rd; Nwachukwu, B.U. Fragility Part I: A guide to understanding statistical power. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. Off. J. ESSKA 2022 , 30 , 3924–3928. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karanicolas, P.J.; Farrokhyar, F.; Bhandari, M. Practical tips for surgical research: Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how? Can. J. Surgery. J. Can. Chir. 2010 , 53 , 345–348. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webster, R.K.; Bishop, F.; Collins, G.S.; Evers, A.W.M.; Hoffmann, T.; Knottnerus, J.A.; Lamb, S.E.; Macdonald, H.; Madigan, C.; Napadow, V.; et al. Measuring the success of blinding in placebo-controlled trials: Should we be so quick to dismiss it? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021 , 135 , 176–181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Królikowska, A.; Daszkiewicz, M.; Kocel, J.; Avram, G.M.; Oleksy, Ł.; Prill, R.; Witkowski, J.; Korolczuk, K.; Kołcz, A.; Reichert, P. The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction during Low-Load Resistance Training Unit on Knee Flexor Muscle Fatigue in Recreational Athletes: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185444

Królikowska A, Daszkiewicz M, Kocel J, Avram GM, Oleksy Ł, Prill R, Witkowski J, Korolczuk K, Kołcz A, Reichert P. The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction during Low-Load Resistance Training Unit on Knee Flexor Muscle Fatigue in Recreational Athletes: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(18):5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185444

Królikowska, Aleksandra, Maciej Daszkiewicz, Julia Kocel, George Mihai Avram, Łukasz Oleksy, Robert Prill, Jarosław Witkowski, Krzysztof Korolczuk, Anna Kołcz, and Paweł Reichert. 2024. "The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction during Low-Load Resistance Training Unit on Knee Flexor Muscle Fatigue in Recreational Athletes: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 18: 5444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185444

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 244 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Chapter 3 - Research Methodology and Research Method

• In book: Cloud Computing

• Multiple Universities

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Kai Chen Goh
• Jia Wen Kong
• Changsaar Chai

• Spéciose Ndimurugero Ngirabakunzi
• Eustache Hagenimana
• Gloriose Mugirase
• Mediatrice Nsengimana

• Dennis Ngong Ocholla
• Lungile P. Luthuli

• Craig Holdcroft

• Norshafiqah Shaari

• Muhammad Nazim Alias
• Nadia Ayu Rahma Lestari
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up