ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Self-Efficacy and Performance in Artistic Gymnastics: A Systematic Review.
Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-efficacy is relevant to sport performance, but its role in artistic gymnastics is unclear because studies vary in construct definition, timing, and outcomes. This PRISMA 2020- and PERSIST 2021-informed systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251266838). PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost (SPORTDiscus and APA PsycInfo) were searched from inception to 18 December 2025, supplemented by backward reference-list checking and forward citation searching. Eligible quantitative studies assessed self-efficacy or task- or apparatus-specific efficacy expectations, or used performance predictions or an adapted gymnastics-task confidence measure as efficacy-related proxies and reported a performance outcome; qualitative evidence was contextual only. Nine studies were included (eight quantitative; one qualitative). Competitive studies using direct task- or event-specific efficacy measures or efficacy-related proxies and judged outcomes generally reported positive associations, but correlations and predictive patterns varied across apparatus, samples, and measures. Educational findings and broader confidence constructs were treated as indirect evidence. Meta-analysis was inappropriate because constructs, samples, apparatus, timing, outcomes, and reporting were heterogeneous. The evidence therefore indicates a possible positive but inconsistent, low-certainty association between task- or apparatus-specific efficacy-related beliefs and performance. Contemporary longitudinal studies and standardized gymnastics-specific measures are needed.
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.