Daily PubMed evidence board
Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled studies that used indirect survey methods to estimate how many athletes admit to doping. The authors searc…
Signal score64Research triage score
CertaintyModerateVerify in full text
PMID42251609Source identifier
Research triage, not medical advice
Do not use this summary, score, or benefit-cost estimate to diagnose, treat, prescribe, or change care without reviewing the full study and consulting qualified professionals.
Verify before acting
Check full-text methods, eligibility, outcomes, risk of bias, harms, conflicts, funding, replication, and applicability.
Plain-English signal
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled studies that used indirect survey methods to estimate how many athletes admit to doping. The authors searched databases through March 2025 and included 46 records (30 included in the meta-analysis representing 34 independent studies). Indirect methods like Unrelated Question and Forced Response techniques were commonly used to reduce underreporting. Results reported lifetime and past-year admitted doping: lifetime prevalence was highest among multi-sport competitive athletes (about 22.6%) and lowest for single-sport competitive athletes (about 12.7%); past-year prevalence was highest for single-sport recreational participants (about 15.5%) and lowest for multi-sport recreational participants (about 8.7%). The review concludes that admitted doping varies by sport type and competition level and notes challenges when studies re-use existing datasets. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022373691).
Why it matters
- Provides pooled estimates of admitted doping prevalence using indirect estimation models (IEM) across sports and competition levels, informing the scale of doping in athletic populations.
- Findings differentiate lifetime vs. past-year prevalence and compare multi-sport vs. single-sport and competitive vs. recreational participants, which matters for targeting anti-doping surveillance, education, and policy.
- Estimates derived from IEMs (e.g., Unrelated Question, Forced Response with Cheater Detection) address underreporting biases in self-report and can change prevalence assumptions used by researchers, sports governing bodies, and anti-doping agencies.
Effect summary
Abstract-reported pooled estimates: lifetime admitted doping highest in multi-sport competitive athletes (~22.6%) and lowest in single-sport competitive athletes (~12.7%); past-year admitted doping highest in single-sport recreational sportspersons (~15.5%) and lowest in multi-sport recreational sportspersons (~8.7%).
Benefit-cost lens
| Quick take | This meta-analysis updates prevalence estimates of self-admitted doping using indirect methods; it may inform prioritization of anti-doping resources but cannot alone justify interventions without cost, program effectiveness, and local baseline data. |
|---|---|
| BCR anchor | 2 |
| Time horizon | 3 |
| Discount rate | 0.03 |
| Assumptions | Assessment based on PubMed metadata and abstract only; full-text verification needed for methods, heterogeneity, subgroup definitions, and exact pooled estimates before cost-effectiveness modeling. |
Benefit-cost fields are assumptions-based unless explicitly source-derived. Treat them as prompts for deeper economic review.
Risk of bias
| Tool | rapid-abstract-screen |
|---|---|
| Verdict | Some concerns |
| Notes | Assessment based only on PubMed metadata and abstract. The study is a systematic review/meta-analysis which can be high-quality, but abstract does not detail heterogeneity, risk-of-bias assessments of included studies, how non-independence from re-analysed datasets was handled, or sensitivity analyses. Full-text appraisal required. |
Harms, equity, conflicts & implementation
| Implementation | Full-text review, extraction of stratified prevalence estimates and uncertainty intervals, assessment of study heterogeneity and bias, local population denominators, costing of interventions, stakeholder consultation, and pilot evaluation framework. |
|---|---|
| Equity impact | Unclear from abstract; equity implications depend on whether prevalence and access differ by region, socioeconomic status, gender, or sport type - full text needed to assess subgroup impacts. |
| Harms | Harms (e.g., stigmatization, misuse of prevalence estimates, policy overreach) are not reported in the abstract; potential harms depend on how prevalence estimates are used in policy or enforcement. |
| Registration | CRD42022373691 |
| Replication | Unknown from automated PubMed triage; replication or independent corroboration not reported in abstract. |
Source links — verify original
Use PubMed and full-text links to confirm methods, population, outcomes, harms, conflicts, and applicability.