Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34463945›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022

Through the Looking Glass: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Evidence, Providing New Insight for Motor Competence and Health.

Lisa M Barnett, E Kipling Webster, Ryan M Hulteen, An De Meester, Nadia C Valentini, Matthieu Lenoir, Caterina Pesce, Nancy Getchell, Vitor P Lopes, Leah E Robinson and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 126 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Lisa M BarnettInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. lisa.barnett@deakin.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9731-625X
E Kipling WebsterInstitute of Public and Preventive Health, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4235-139X
Ryan M HulteenSchool of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4558-1297
An De MeesterDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2270-719X
Nadia C ValentiniDepartment of Physical Education, Physiotherapy, and Dance, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6412-5206
Matthieu LenoirDepartment of Movement and Sports Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3906-1137
Caterina PesceDepartment of Movement, University of Rome "Foro Italico", Human and Health Sciences, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4245-3898
Nancy GetchellDepartment of Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9230-9838
Vitor P LopesResearch Center in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development (CIDESD), Vila Real, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1599-2180
Leah E RobinsonSchool of Kinesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9016-648X
Ali BrianDepartment of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6541-0938
Luis P RodriguesInstituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-223, Bragança, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6804-3600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn 2008, a conceptual model explaining the role of motor competence (MC) in children's physical activity (PA), weight status, perceived MC and health-related fitness was published.

objectiveThe purpose of the current review was to systematically compile mediation, longitudinal and experimental evidence in support of this conceptual model.

methodsThis systematic review (registered with PROSPERO on 28 April 2020) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Separate searches were undertaken for each pathway of interest (final search 8 November 2019) using CINAHL Complete, ERIC, Medline (OVID), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus and SportDiscus. Potential articles were initially identified through abstract and title checking (N = 585) then screened further and combined into one review (n = 152), with 43 articles identified for extraction. Studies needed to be original and peer reviewed, include typically developing children and adolescents first assessed between 2 and 18 years and objective assessment of gross MC and at least one other variable (i.e., PA, weight status, perceived MC, health-related fitness). PA included sport participation, but sport-specific samples were excluded. Longitudinal or experimental designs and cross-sectional mediated models were sought. Strength of evidence was calculated for each pathway in both directions for each domain (i.e., skill composite, object control and locomotor/coordination/stability) by dividing the proportion of studies indicating a significantly positive pathway in the hypothesised direction by the total associations examined for that pathway. Classifications were no association (0-33%), indeterminate/inconsistent (34-59%), or a positive '+' or negative ' - ' association (≥ 60%). The latter category was classified as strong evidence (i.e., ++or --) when four or more studies found an association. If the total number of studies in a domain of interest was three or fewer, this was considered insufficient evidence to make a determination.

resultsThere was strong evidence in both directions for a negative association between MC and weight status. There was strong positive evidence for a pathway from MC to fitness and indeterminate evidence for the reverse. There was indeterminate evidence for a pathway from MC to PA and no evidence for the reverse pathway. There was insufficient evidence for the MC to perceived MC pathway. There was strong positive evidence for the fitness-mediated MC/PA pathway in both directions. There was indeterminate evidence for the perceived MC-mediated pathway from PA to MC and no evidence for the reverse.

conclusionBidirectional longitudinal associations of MC with weight status are consistent with the model authored by Stodden et al. (Quest 2008;60(2):290-306, 2008). However, to test the whole model, the field needs robust longitudinal studies across childhood and adolescence that include all variables in the model, have multiple time points and account for potential confounding factors. Furthermore, experimental studies that examine change in MC relative to change in the other constructs are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: PROSPERO ID# CRD42020155799.

Indexed as

ExerciseSportsAdolescentChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumans

Identifiers

PMID34463945
PMCPMC8938405

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.