Key result
Commercial exergames had no significant benefit on overall executive functions compared to conventional exercises in children and adolescents.
Why the study?
No systematic review had compared the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving executive functions in children and adolescents.
Do commercial exergames improve executive functions in children and adolescents compared to conventional exercises?
Meta-Analysis (n=435)
Do commercial exergames improve executive functions in children and adolescents compared to conventional exercises?
Commercial exergames do not show a significant benefit over conventional exercises for improving executive functions in children and adolescents, though the current evidence is of very low quality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Exergames show no superiority over conventional exercise for youth executive function; very low-quality evidence leaves comparative efficacy unresolved.
BACKGROUND Exergames are promising exercise tools for improving health. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has compared the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving executive functions (EFs) in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving EFs in children and adolescents. METHODS Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, 5 randomized controlled trial (RCT) databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) were searched from their inception to July 7, 2022, to identify relevant RCTs. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias for each study. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. RESULTS In total, 8 RCTs including 435 children and adolescents were included in the analysis. Commercial exergames had no significant benefit on overall EFs compared to conventional exercises (Hedges g=1.464, 95% CI –0.352 to 3.280; P=.06). For core EFs, there was no evidence to suggest that commercial exergames are more beneficial for improving cognitive flexibility (g=0.906, 95% CI –0.274 to 2.086; P=.13), inhibitory control (g=1.323, 95% CI –0.398 to 3.044; P=.13), or working memory (g=2.420, 95% CI –1.199 to 6.038; P=.19) than conventional exercises. We rated the evidence for overall EFs, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory as being of very low quality due to inconsistency (large heterogeneity) and imprecision (low number of people). Additionally, no effects of the intervention were observed in the acute and chronic groups. CONCLUSIONS We do not have strong evidence to support the benefit of commercial exergaming on EFs because we did not observe a Hedges g close to 0 with tight CIs. Further research is needed to confirm this hypothesis. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42022324111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=324111
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in Children and adolescents (n=435). Commercial exergames vs. Conventional exercises was evaluated on Overall executive functions (EFs) (Hedges g 1.464, 95% CI -0.352 to 3.280, p=.06). Commercial exergames had no significant benefit on overall executive functions compared to conventional exercises in children and adolescents.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: