SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Physical Literacy and Obesity Risk in Children: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Childhood obesity is one of the greatest challenges facing public health in the 21st century. Currently, there is a great deal of interest in the concept of physical literacy due to its comprehensive nature on the development of physical activity. Physical literacy can be described as the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life. The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the literature examining the relationship between physical literacy and risk of obesity in children. This paper also focuses on providing an evaluation of the availability and effectiveness of current physical literacy assessment tools. (2) Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. (3) Results: A total of 3267 papers were identified from five major databases. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with nine studies included in the final review following quality appraisal. (4) Conclusions: This review identified significant gaps in our understanding of physical literacy emphasising the need for a consistent framework, standardised assessment tools and more experimental research.
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.