SynthesisBMC pediatrics2025
Do physical fitness and motor skill performances in underweight children differ from normal weight peers? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Associations Between Digital Exclusion and Physical or Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR aging · 2026Pooled it
- Differences in motor skill-related physical fitness between moderately thin and normal weight rural Ethiopian children (ages 5-7).Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUndernourished children are at risk of mortality and infection and tend to present with impaired cognitive and physical development with potentially lower physical fitness and motor skill competence. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the physical fitness and motor skill competence of underweight (UW) 3-12-year-old children to that of normal-weight (NW) peers of the same age.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were systematically searched (last update: April 4th, 2024). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network checklist. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD; Hedges' g) were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was considered too high if the I-squared value exceeded 50%. Then, subgroup analysis was considered. The level of evidence was estimated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method.
resultsSeventeen studies were included in the meta-analysis on physical fitness, while six focused on motor skills, with one study contributing to both. Overall, children with UW have slightly lower physical fitness (SMD = -0.10) and motor skill competence (SMD = -0.12) compared to their NW peers, but the evidence to support this is very low. In North America and Europe, there was no significant difference in physical fitness between the groups. Asian and African children with UW have slightly but significantly weaker strength than NW peers (Asia: SMD = -0.21 Africa: SMD = -0.27). Asian UW children present with weaker anaerobic capacity (SMD = -0.25), whereas African UW children have less flexibility (SMD = -0.16) than NW peers.
conclusionUW children are less fit and have weaker motor skills than NW peers. Specifically in developing regions, UW children exhibited slightly but significantly poorer performance in specific fitness domains. Therefore, not all UW children will experience these problems. The heterogeneity across the studies may have masked the true differences. Future research on these children is needed to help us understand their profiles better. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023446239.
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.