Table 7 NHMRC body of evidence framework
Component | Grade | Comments |
|---|---|---|
Evidence Base | D-Poor | • Total of 5 studies |
|  | Level IV studies or level I to III studies with risk of bias | • Total of 135 male athletes |
|  |  | • L II: 1 study |
|  |  | • L IV: 4 studies |
|  |  | • Quality of studies (table 4 in text) |
Consistency | B-Good | • Population: Australian football, soccer & others |
|  | Most studies consistent and inconsistencies may be explained | • Outcomes used: 4/5 studies used return to sport; 4/5 used subjective scores |
|  |  | • While most studies consistently reported on the positive effects of exercises for groin pain, there is variability in the populations included, interventions provided and outcomes measured potentially leading to heterogeneity |
Clinical Impact | C – Satisfactory | • Presently only one high level, high quality publications in the literature |
|  | Moderate | • The clinical impact from available evidence base is only satisfactory as vital information on effect size, comparison with other management options are missing |
|  |  | • The current evidence base also focused on mainly subjective measures of outcomes |
Generalisability | B-Good Population(s) studied in the body of evidence are similar to the target population | • Population studied in the evidence base is similar to the target population • However, the current evidence base lack clarity in terms of diagnosis, injury periods and predominately focused on the male sporting population |
Grade of Recommendation | D- Poor | • Limited number of studies were identified from the literature |
|  | Body of evidence is weak and recommendation should be applied with caution | • Overall, these studies were low level and were of moderate quality |
|  |  | • While the findings were consistent, there were issues with varying diagnostic criteria, poor description of interventions, differing outcome measures and lack of long term follow up |