“…Our meta-analysis, conducted only in athletes ( n = 7988), showed an ER of myocarditis of 1% (95% CI, 1–2%; p < 0.001), an ER of myocarditis of 4% (CI 1–6%; p < 0.001) if we made a sub-group analysis in all athletes who performed CMR studies ( n = 2390), and an ER of myocarditis of 2% (CI 1–4%; p < 0.001) in studies in which CMR was performed directly in the whole COVID-19-positive population ( n = 389) [ 19 , 20 , 26 , 27 , 31 ]. These results are probably due to the fact that there is a wide heterogeneity in studies design, namely a few studies made CMR in all positive athletes [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 27 , 31 ], whereas other researches made a CMR only on a clinical suspicion basis [ 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. For example, in the study by Curt Daniels et al [ 21 ], four distinct approaches were used to refer athletes with recent COVID-19 infection to CMR: the first approach was based on the presence of symptoms; the second, on the combined use of ECG parameters, ECHO, hs-TN test, and other abnormalities; the third approach was based on abnormalities in at least one of ECG, ECHO, hs-TN test, or other anomalies; and the last was the direct use of CMR.…”