ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Physical activity intervention improves executive function in children with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of various physical activities on executive function (EF) and its components-inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility-in children with ASD. Methods: Six databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, CBMdisc) were searched from inception to December 2025. Additional studies were identified through reference list screening. We used RevMan 5.4 and the GRADE framework to assess risk of bias and quality grades, and Stata 18 to generate forest and funnel plots for data analysis. Results: Fourteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Physical activity resulted in at least moderate improvements in EF and all subdomains. Notably, FMS training administered four times per week for 18 weeks produced a large effect on EF [SMD = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.50-3.74]. In comparison, digital motion-sensing games showed the largest effects on inhibition [SMD = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.52-2.25], working memory [SMD = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.08-1.70], and cognitive flexibility [SMD = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.36-1.39]. A protocol of 15 min per session, two to three sessions per week for 18 weeks, achieved at least moderate improvements in inhibition and cognitive flexibility, while working memory showed a large effect by eight weeks. Conclusions: FMS training conducted four times per week for 18 weeks provides the greatest overall benefit. Fifteen-minute digital motion-sensing game sessions, two to three times per week for 18 weeks, are most effective for improving inhibition and cognitive flexibility, and working-memory improvements are observable within four weeks. Further research with larger sample sizes is recommended. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251130511, PROSPERO CRD420251130511.
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.