ArticleBMC medicine2019
Response to Daly-Smith et al.'s commentary on 'The Daily Mile makes primary school children more active, less sedentary and improves their fitness and body composition: a quasi-experimental pilot study'.
Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of 5-weeks participation in The Daily Mile on cognitive function, physical fitness, and body composition in children.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- The Impact of COVID-19-Related Mitigation Measures on the Health and Fitness Status of Primary School Children in Austria: A Longitudinal Study with Data from 708 Children Measured before and during the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Daily Mile: Whole-school recommendations for implementation and sustainability. A mixed-methods study.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We thank Daly-Smith et al. for taking the time to read the results of our pilot research study, describing it as an important and welcome contribution. Nonetheless, the authors argue six points against our conclusion. We contend that we addressed three of these points in our original discussion and disagree with their remaining points. Overall, their Commentary adds little to the topic of research into the Daily Mile™ that we had not already raised in our discussion. Additionally, they attribute statements to us that we did not make and ignore the raising of key issues in our original article. Given this, we stand by our original peer-reviewed conclusion that introducing the Daily Mile™ to the primary school day appears to be an effective intervention for increasing levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity, reducing sedentary time, increasing physical fitness and improving body composition, and that these findings have relevance for teachers, policy-makers, public health practitioners and health researchers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.