This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background Sports-genomics research in Turkish athlete populations has examined diverse sports, genetic approaches, and sport-related phenotypes. This systematic review mapped the scope, study populations, and methodological characteristics of this literature. Methods This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020. Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, Google Scholar, TRDizin, and DergiPark were searched for records published from 1 January 2019 to 1 April 2026. Original human studies were eligible when they included an identifiable Turkish athlete population and investigated inherited genetic or genomic variation in relation to a sport-related phenotype. Eligibility was determined by the characteristics of the study population and the availability of separately extractable data for Turkish athletes. Records were deduplicated and independently screened. Reports from confirmed shared cohorts were retained when they contributed non-overlapping eligible information and were linked during synthesis. Results The database search yielded 1,740 records. After removal of 717 duplicates, 1,023 records underwent title and abstract screening and 396 full texts were assessed. Sixty-one database-derived reports and nine reports identified through backward reference-list checking and forward citation searching were included, yielding 70 reports from 58 operationally unique study populations. These populations comprised 3,201 athletes and 3,683 non-athlete controls. Eighteen reports originated from six confirmed shared-cohort clusters. Conclusion This review provides a transparent evidence base for a cautious descriptive synthesis of Turkish sports-genomics research. The evidence is reported as a structured account of the study populations, genetic approaches, and phenotypic themes represented in the literature. Systematic Review Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/739CG .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kasap et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: