SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Motor skill development is a central objective of school physical education, yet the comparative effectiveness of teaching models remains unclear. Objective: This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared physical education teaching models for motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents. Methods: Records were identified from Scopus ( Results: The primary network contained nine treatment nodes. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding-Sport Education (TGfU-SE), Nonlinear pedagogy, and Functional games showed the most favorable relative effect estimates in the primary network. However, the treatment ordering was sensitive to outcome definition, participant age, and individual studies, while substantial heterogeneity, network inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias remained. In the broad sensitivity network, Cooperative had the highest Conclusion: Restricting the primary network to participants younger than 18 years improved population and outcome comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias preclude a definitive hierarchy. The Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261417609, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261417609).
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.