Incorrect design and analysis render conclusion unsubstantiated: comment on "A digital movement in the world of inactive children: favourable outcomes of playing active video games in a pilot randomized trial".

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.

1. Evaluation of the type I error rate when using parametric bootstrap analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial with binary outcomes and a small number of clusters.Computer methods and programs in biomedicine · 2022
   Trial
2. A practical decision tree to support editorial adjudication of submitted parallel cluster randomized controlled trials.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2022
   Article
3. Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2021
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  A digital movement in the world of inactive children: favourable outcomes of playing active video games in a pilot randomized trial.2019

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as