↓ Skip to main content

CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#17 of 181)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
Title
CrossFit Overview: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40798-018-0124-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

João Gustavo Claudino, Tim J. Gabbett, Frank Bourgeois, Helton de Sá Souza, Rafael Chagas Miranda, Bruno Mezêncio, Rafael Soncin, Carlos Alberto Cardoso Filho, Martim Bottaro, Arnaldo Jose Hernandez, Alberto Carlos Amadio, Julio Cerca Serrão

Abstract

CrossFit is recognized as one of the fastest growing high-intensity functional training modes in the world. However, scientific data regarding the practice of CrossFit is sparse. Therefore, the objective of this study is to analyze the findings of scientific literature related to CrossFit via systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic searches of the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme/MedLine, and SciELO online databases were conducted for articles reporting the effects of CrossFit training. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The Oxford Levels of Evidence was used for all included articles, and only studies that investigated the effects of CrossFit as a training program were included in the meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, effect sizes (ESs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed using a random-effects model. Thirty-one articles were included in the systematic review and four were included in the meta-analysis. However, only two studies had a high level of evidence at low risk of bias. Scientific literature related to CrossFit has reported on body composition, psycho-physiological parameters, musculoskeletal injury risk, life and health aspects, and psycho-social behavior. In the meta-analysis, significant results were not found for any variables. The current scientific literature related to CrossFit has few studies with high level of evidence at low risk of bias. However, preliminary data has suggested that CrossFit practice is associated with higher levels of sense of community, satisfaction, and motivation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 209 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 21%
Unspecified 42 20%
Student > Master 39 19%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 8%
Other 50 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 69 33%
Unspecified 49 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 23 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2019.
All research outputs
#310,919
of 13,366,323 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#17
of 181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,373
of 269,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,366,323 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,117 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them