Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials on Knee and Ankle Injury Prevention Programs in Football Players Using PRISMA 2020

Background: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses play a critical role in synthesizing evidence on injury prevention programs in football. However, their utility depends on transparent and complete reporting, as promoted by the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Aim: To assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on knee and ankle injury prevention programs in football players, using the PRISMA 2020 checklist. Methods: A methodological review was conducted following a preregistered protocol. Systematic searches in four databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane) identified eligible meta-analyses including only RCTs on exercise-based prevention of knee or ankle injuries in football players. PRISMA 2020 adherence was evaluated across 52 items using a 3-point scale. Data were independently extracted and assessed by two reviewers. Results: Five meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Overall adherence to PRISMA 2020 was moderate (mean score = 70.38%), with substantial variability across sections. The Title (100%), Introduction (95.0%), and Discussion (90.0%) were best reported, while the Abstract (57.3%) and Other Information (47.3%) sections showed the lowest adherence. The Methods sections (74.7%) and the Results sections (74.5%) demonstrated a moderate level of adherence. Key underreported items included protocol registration, funding, data availability, and certainty of evidence. Conclusions: Despite moderate adherence, significant reporting gaps remain in meta-analyses on football injury prevention. Stricter enforcement of PRISMA guidelines is essential to improve transparency, reproducibility, and the practical impact of evidence syntheses in sports medicine.