Effects of Commercial Exergames and Conventional Exercises on Improving Executive Functions in Children and Adolescents: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
RCT
adolescent
children
commercial exergames
conventional exercises
executive function
exergame
exergaming
meta analyses
meta-analysis
pediatric
randomized
randomized controlled trial
review method
systematic review
youth
Journal
JMIR serious games
ISSN: 2291-9279
Titre abrégé: JMIR Serious Games
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101645255
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2023
19 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
14
09
2022
accepted:
18
07
2023
revised:
25
12
2022
medline:
19
10
2023
pubmed:
19
10
2023
entrez:
19
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. This study aimed to investigate the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving EFs in children and adolescents. 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. 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. 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. PROSPERO CRD42022324111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=324111.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to investigate the effects of commercial exergames and conventional exercises on improving EFs in children and adolescents.
METHODS
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
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
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
PROSPERO CRD42022324111; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=324111.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37856191
pii: v11i1e42697
doi: 10.2196/42697
pmc: PMC10623224
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e42697Informations de copyright
©Jinlong Wu, Zhuang Xu, Haowei Liu, Xiaoke Chen, Li Huang, Qiuqiong Shi, Linman Weng, Yemeng Ji, Hao Zeng, Li Peng. Originally published in JMIR Serious Games (https://games.jmir.org), 19.10.2023.
Références
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Jun;70(3):526-36
pubmed: 12090367
Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135-68
pubmed: 23020641
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2021 Nov-Dec;97:104485
pubmed: 34293715
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004 Oct;72(5):757-66
pubmed: 15482034
Neurosci Res. 2001 Feb;39(2):147-65
pubmed: 11223461
J Clin Med. 2019 Oct 21;8(10):
pubmed: 31640158
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 28;11(12):e0167501
pubmed: 28030542
JMIR Serious Games. 2022 Jul 25;10(3):e36123
pubmed: 35877166
J Sport Health Sci. 2017 Mar;6(1):25-32
pubmed: 30356595
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Jun 25;15(7):
pubmed: 29941811
J Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Nov;29(11):1895-1907
pubmed: 28699808
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):401-6
pubmed: 21208779
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Sep;56(9):729-738
pubmed: 28838577
Games Health J. 2020 Oct;9(5):314-338
pubmed: 32017864
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2015 Nov;21(10):768-79
pubmed: 26581789
Sports Med. 2022 Jan;52(1):75-88
pubmed: 34468951
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020 Oct;21(10):1415-1422.e6
pubmed: 32981668
Games Health J. 2019 Aug;8(4):250-256
pubmed: 30730230
Front Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 06;11:36
pubmed: 32116851
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Dec 08;10:626
pubmed: 28018195
Child Dev Perspect. 2011 Jun;5(2):93-98
pubmed: 22563349
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 May;22(5):995-1002
pubmed: 33812843
J Clin Med. 2019 Apr 06;8(4):
pubmed: 30959860
J Educ Develop Psychol. 2014;4(1):209-225
pubmed: 25328562
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 16;19(12):
pubmed: 35742670
Front Psychol. 2016 Oct 04;7:1474
pubmed: 27757088
J Sport Health Sci. 2017 Mar;6(1):4-10
pubmed: 28491483
Obes Rev. 2015 Sep;16(9):783-94
pubmed: 25943852
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2021 Nov 24;18(1):164
pubmed: 34819097
Int J Exerc Sci. 2018 Jan 02;11(7):516-525
pubmed: 29541339
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
Clin Rehabil. 2019 Jan;33(1):54-63
pubmed: 30064268
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 23;12:575094
pubmed: 34366904
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 09;18(4):
pubmed: 33572159
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;48(12):973-9
pubmed: 23467962
J Phys Act Health. 2014 May;11(4):864-70
pubmed: 25078529
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Jun;103(6):1192-1200.e2
pubmed: 35033538
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 19;17(4):e0266913
pubmed: 35439265
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021 Apr;123:352-353
pubmed: 31760047
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2021 Aug;31(8):1592-1611
pubmed: 33797115
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jul;78:34-43
pubmed: 28442405