SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
A network meta-analysis of the effects of different rehabilitation intervention strategies on executive function in children and adolescents.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Addressing Disparities: A Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial of School-Based Executive Functioning Interventions.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 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
This network meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions for executive function in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and searched multiple databases until 1 May 2025. Studies were selected based on PICOS criteria, including RCTs on ASD and executive function. The risk of bias was assessed via the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The certainty of the evidence was appraised via the confidence in the network meta-analysis framework. Network meta-analysis was statistically assessed via STATA 17.0. The surface under the cumulative ranking was used to estimate the rankings among different interventions. A total of 23 RCTs involving 1004 children and adolescents with ASD were included. This study showed that exercise intervention had relatively strong advantages in improving overall executive function and inhibitory control, and also had certain effects on cognitive flexibility and working memory in children and adolescents with ASD. Cognitive-behavioral intervention performs better in terms of working memory. Cognitive-behavioral intervention and executive function task training also demonstrated positive effects on executive function rehabilitation.
conclusionThis study indicates that different rehabilitation methods have a significant impact on overall executive function and its various dimensions. In clinical practice, exercise, cognitive-behavioral intervention, and executive function task training are actively recommended. However, the effectiveness of combining different intervention strategies or using novel AI rehabilitation tools for executive function rehabilitation remains to be explored in randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes.
trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42025641698). WHAT IS KNOWN: • In intervention strategies for autism, improving executive function plays a crucial role in enhancing patients' quality of life and social adaptability. Although various interventions have achieved some success, their effects on executive function differ. WHAT IS NEW: • There is still a lack of sufficient scientific evidence on the comparative advantages and complementary effects of different intervention strategies. Therefore, it is important to conduct a systematic review of the effects of different rehabilitation intervention strategies on the improvement of executive function in autism, especially using a network meta-analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40999094What 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.