SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
The effects of exercise intervention on children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Motor interventions are widely used to improve motor function in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), but their relative efficacy across key functional domains remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of integrated training (IT), task-oriented training (TOT), and process-oriented training (POT). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and January 2026 were systematically retrieved from multiple databases following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-NMA reporting standards. Multiple validated motor assessment tools were harmonized for pooled analysis. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Twenty RCTs (n = 1,867) were included. All three interventions were associated with significant improvements in motor function outcomes. TOT showed the largest estimated effect on overall motor function (SMD = 2. 30, 95% CI: 0. 42 to 4. 18) and achieved the highest SUCRA ranking (55. 3%). IT achieved the highest SUCRA rankings for balance (SMD = -1. 93, 95% CI: -3. 10 to -0. 76; SUCRA = 78. 3%) and manual dexterity (SMD = -2. 11, 95% CI: -4. 12 to -0. 10; SUCRA = 71. 5%). For aiming and catching, IT (SMD = -3. 90, 95% CI: -7. 51 to -0. 29) and POT (SMD = -3. 83, 95% CI: -7. 48 to -0. 18) showed significant improvements, whereas TOT did not demonstrate a significant effect. Interventions lasting more than 8 weeks were associated with greater effects (P = 0. 001), while age was not a significant moderator (P = 0. 577). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the overall findings, although significant small-study effects were observed for several outcomes; incomplete blinding and substantial cross-study heterogeneity may inflate pooled effect sizes. Conclusion: The available evidence suggests that motor interventions may improve motor function in children with DCD, with potentially different benefits across functional domains. TOT achieved the highest ranking probability for overall motor function, whereas IT achieved the highest rankings for balance and manual dexterity. In addition, both IT and POT were associated with significant improvements in aiming and catching ability. Longer intervention durations were associated with larger effect sizes. However, due to small-study effects, limited direct head-to-head comparisons, sparse network connectivity, and the inherent uncertainty of indirect comparisons, the present findings and SUCRA-based rankings should be interpreted with caution. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261346625.
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.