REVIEW article

Front. Neurosci., 20 March 2023

Sec. Developmental and Regenerative Neuroscience

Volume 17 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1139263

Effects of different physical activity interventions on children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 1. School of Physical Education and Sports Science, Guangzhou Sport University, Guangzhou, China

  • 2. LFE Research Group, Department of Health and Human Performance, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

  • 3. School of Dance and Martial Arts, Capital University of Physical Education and Sports, Beijing, China

  • 4. Centre for Active Living and Learning, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

  • 5. Postgraduate School, University of Harbin Sport, Harbin, China

Abstract

Background:

Previous studies have shown that physical activity interventions positively affect core symptoms and executive functioning in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, comparisons between different physical activity interventions still need to be made. This study is the first to analyze the effects of 10 different types of physical activity on children with ADHD through a network meta-analysis.

Methods:

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials on the effects of physical activity interventions on children with ADHD. The search time frame was from database creation to October 2022. Two investigators independently performed literature screening, extraction, and quality assessment. Network meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.1.

Results:

A total of 31 studies were included, and the results indicated that perceptual-motor training was the most effective in terms of motor ability and working memory (SUCRA = 82.7 and 73.3%, respectively). For attention problems and cognitive flexibility, aquatic exercise was the most effective (SUCRA = 80.9 and 86.6%, respectively). For social problems, horsemanship was the most effective (SUCRA = 79.4%). For inhibition switching, cognitive-motor training was the most effective (SUCRA = 83.5%).

Conclusion:

Our study revealed that aquatic exercise and perceptual-motor training had a superior overall performance. However, the effects of various physical activity interventions on different indicators in children with ADHD can vary depending on the individual and the intervention’s validity. To ensure an appropriate physical activity intervention is selected, it is important to assess the severity of symptoms exhibited by children with ADHD beforehand.

1. Introduction

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects approximately 7.2% of children worldwide (; ). Its primary characteristics are inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity (), and can be divided into three distinct subtypes: inattentive, hyperactive-impulsive, and combined inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive (). It has been shown that children with ADHD often develop diverse problems, including sleep disturbances, distractibility, motor deficits, decreased social skills, and decreased academic performance (; ; ; ). These issues are also persistent, frequently remaining when patients reach puberty and adulthood (). Therefore, it is highly detrimental to the development of pediatric patients and hurts their physical and mental health, academic growth, and socialization process.

Given this, the treatment of pediatric patients with ADHD is of utmost importance. The most commonly used treatment modality is medication, such as methylphenidate (MPH) (; ), but it may cause side effects such as headache, stomach pain, and decreased appetite (). Meanwhile, in the past two decades, non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD have been rapidly developed and used (), such as physical activity interventions, neurofeedback interventions, and cognitive interventions (; ; ), due to concerns about the side effects and long-term effects of pharmacological treatments (). Physical activity interventions, in particular, have gained traction due to their lower cost, ease of implementation, capacity to improve physical fitness, and additional benefits ().

Previous research has uncovered a strong link between physical activity and various functions in individuals with ADHD. utilized data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten cohort (ECLS-K) to demonstrate that structured physical activity was associated with a decrease in ADHD symptoms over time. This may be due to the stimulation of the catecholamine system, which is known to be impaired in individuals with ADHD ().

A recent study conducted by investigated the impact of physical activity on the physical and mental health of children and adolescents with ADHD, with self-esteem as a moderating factor. The results indicated that physical activity and health levels are integral components of well-being for this population and that self-esteem could be a potential mediator for the connection between physical activity and health outcomes (). Some previous meta-analyzes have also shown evidence of better efficacy of physical activity in patients with ADHD. explored the impact of physical activity on core symptoms of attention, impulsivity, anxiety, and executive functioning in patients with ADHD. The results showed that physical activity was more effective than non-physical activity, particularly aerobic exercise (). assessed the effects of physical activity interventions compared to non-physical activity interventions in children with ADHD. The findings indicated that physical activity interventions had a significant positive effect on anxiety and depression, aggressive behavior, thinking, and social problems in children with ADHD (). performed a meta-analysis evaluating the effects of non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD on cognitive functioning. The interventions studied included neurofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, cognitive training, and physical exercise. Physical exercise was found to have the greatest mean effect size, particularly for inhibition (). studied the efficacy of moderate to vigorous exercise (MVPA) on children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), focusing on the intensity component of physical activity. The study indicated that MVPA was the most effective treatment for ADHD and that it might be used as an alternative (). Collectively, these findings suggest that physical exercise may be an effective treatment option for ADHD patients.

However, previous meta-analyzes have largely compared physical and non-physical activity, without examined the potential distinctions between different types of physical activity interventions. The types of physical activity are diverse and include many types of aquatic exercise, ball games, mind-body exercise, and high-intensity interval training. Therefore, what specific types of physical activity provide the most significant benefit to pediatric patients with ADHD? Through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial studies of physical activity in pediatric patients with ADHD, this study provides valuable information for selecting the best physical activity for treating pediatric patients with ADHD.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Protocol and registration

The meta-analysis was conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the findings were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) statement (; ). This network meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42022363255).

2.2. Data sources and search strategy

We conducted a comprehensive search of four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) to identify relevant studies. Search strings included physical activity interventions, age ranges, and outcomes related to patients with ADHD. The search was performed up to October 2022. Supplementary Appendix A shows the detailed search strings for this search.

2.3. Study selection

Following guidelines, two authors (DW and DL) independently assessed the search results and vetted the publications retrieved from databases and reference lists. The titles and abstracts of the research were first used to determine their relevance. Then, relevant full-text studies were retrieved and evaluated for inclusion. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion and consensus.

2.4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This systematic review employed specified inclusion criteria. Each study met the following criteria:

  • (1)

    Only randomized controlled trials were included, and observational and cross-sectional studies were excluded.

  • (2)

    The range of age participants in the sample must be 18 years or less.

  • (3)

    The physical activity intervention had to contain a sports or physical activity component. Studies without physical activity intervention were excluded.

  • (4)

    The study must report data on indicators of motor skills, attention problems, social problems, cognitive flexibility, inhibitory switching, and working memory in children with ADHD before and after the intervention. Studies that do not report on these indicators must be excluded.

  • (5)

    Presented original data.

  • (6)

    We only analyzed papers written in English and excluded papers written in other languages.

2.5. Data extraction

The data were extracted to a standardized Excel spreadsheet. Two authors collected the required data separately from the included studies. Disagreements encountered during the process were resolved through discussion with the group. The following data were extracted from the final study: author, year, country, subject characteristics, intervention characteristics, and ADHD-related outcome indicators.

2.6. Quality assessment

The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane System Risk of Bias Assessment tool via Review Manager 5.4 software, which evaluates the studies’ quality on seven indicators: 1. Random sequence generation; 2. Allocation concealment; 3. Blinding of participants and personnel; 4. Blinding of outcome assessment; 5. Incomplete outcome data; 6. Selective reporting; and 7. Other bias.

2.7. Statistical analysis

We computed the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. The P-value of the chi-square test and the I2 index from the heterogeneity test were used to express the level of statistical heterogeneity. Different effect models were selected according to the level of heterogeneity of the test data. When the level of heterogeneity was low, a fixed-effects model (P ≥ 0.1 and I2 ≤ 50%) was used to analyze the data. Otherwise, a random-effects model (P < 0.1 or I2 values >50%) was used ().

According to the PRISMA NMA recommendations, we aggregated and analyzed NMA data using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation chains in a Bayesian-based framework and Stata software (version 15.1) (; ). We will employ the nodal method to quantify and demonstrate the congruence between indirect and direct comparisons, as obtained by Stata software instructions. If the p-value is greater than 0.05, the agreement test is passed.

Network meta-analysis was performed by employing a Bayesian model. The data were preprocessed using network group commands, and a mesh evidence map was drawn. The dots in the mesh evidence plot represent one intervention type, and the larger the area of its dots represents, the more significant the number of patients included in the study for the intervention. The line connecting the two dots is a direct comparison of the two interventions, and the thickness of the line represents the number of included studies. The larger the number of included studies, the thicker the line (). The effects of the different movement methods were ranked. The effects of the different exercise modalities were ranked, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was obtained, and the probability ranking was plotted in a table. SUCRA is expressed as a percentage. The larger the percentage, the more effective the intervention. Additionally, to check for publication bias and minor sample study effects, we generated funnel plots for outcome indicators with study numbers >10 and used symmetry criteria to check (). Stata15.1 was used to perform all statistical analyzes.

3. Results

3.1. Trial selection

A total of 3,052 citations are yielded in the initial search of electronic databases, and an additional seven documents were manually searched. After removing duplicate studies (n = 1,129), 1,930 relevant papers remained. Subsequently, through screening, 1,809 papers were removed, and 121 papers suitable for full-text review remained, of which 90 were further eliminated. Finally, 31 studies were adopted for quantitative synthesis (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

3.2. Trial characteristics

Characteristics of studies adopted are shown in Table 1, all of which were published between 2004 and 2022. The country with the highest number of included studies was Iran, with a total number of five papers. The sample size ranged from 5 to 104 for the experimental group and 5–98 for the control group, with relatively more men in the included studies. The included experimental and control groups’ mean age was less than or equal to 16 years. Interventions included cognitive-motor training (6 studies) (; ; ; ; ; ), combination exercise (6 studies) (; ; ; ; ; ), traditional aerobic exercise (5 studies) (; ; ; ; ), acute aerobic exercise (4 studies) (; ; ; ), aquatic exercise (3 studies) (; ; ), horsemanship (3 studies) (; ; ), perceptual-motor training (3 studies) (; ; ), mind-body exercise (2 studies) (; ), as well as sensory integration training (1 study) (). The outcome indicators for ADHD consisted of motor ability, social problems, attention problems, cognitive flexibility, inhibition switching, as well as the working memory.

TABLE 1

StudyCountrySample sizeGender (M/F)Mean age (year)InterventionOutcomeADHD diagnostics
EGCGEGCGEGCG
Intervention contentIntervention time, frequency, periodTapeIntervention contentInterven- tion time, frequency, periodTape
Korea171731/38.308.00Horsemanship practice60 min, 2 weekly, 12 weeksHMSPharmacotherapyConsistent with EGPCTA1;A2DSM-4
Germany141428/01111High intensity interval training25 min, 3 weekly, 3 weeksTAELow-to-moderate intensity ball games60 min, 3 weekly 3 weeksCMTA1;A2;A3DSM-4
Iran232323/239.609.50Water treadmill exercise30 min, 3 weekly, 8 weeksAENININIA3DSM-5
Denmark6464109/1911.3911.63Target-shooting sport20–45 min, 1 weekly, 24 weeksCMTNININIA5DSM-4
Iran202029/117.507.78Perceptual-motor training40–45 min, 3 weekly, 7 weeksPMTNeurofeedback trainingConsistent with EGNFTA1;A5DSM–5
Iran121220/48.78.00Perceptual-motor trainingNR min, 3 weekly, 6 yearsPMTPharmacotherapyNR min 3 weekly 6 yearsPCTA1DSM-4
Korea8712/37.507.14Horsemanship practice40 min, 2 weekly, 16 weeksHMSNININIA2;A3DSM-5
America423853/277.67.20Computerized cognitive training + physical exercises120 min, 4 weekly, 15 weeksCMTPharmacotherapyNRPCTA5;A6DSM-4
Brazil101014/61212.00Swimming training45 min, 2 weekly, 8 weeksAENININIA1;A2;A4DSM-4
Canada483872/1413.1012.82Mindfulness martial arts90 min, 1 weekly, 20 weeksMBEMental health treatments+ educational interventionsNRCIA2;A4;A5;A6DSM-4
China202037/310.4210.45Aerobic exercise30 min, 1 weekly, 1 weekAAEWatch videoConsistent with EGCIA4;A5DSM-4
China141323/48.198.78Water exercise90 min, 2 weekly, 8 weeksAENININIA1;A4;A5DSM-4
Korea151328/08.48.6Sports therapy90 min, 2 weekly, 6 weeksCEEducation for behaviorNRCIA2;A5;A6DSM-4
Germany232447/010.4710.47Trampoline5 min, 1 weekly, 1 weekAAESedentary taskConsistent with EGCIA4;A5ICD-10
Korea131730/015.8016.00Sports therapy90 min, 3 weekly, 6 weeksCEWatch videoConsistent with EGCIA4;A5DSM-4
Germany131621/89.29.5Sports therapy60 min, 1 weekly, 12 weeksCENININIA1;A4;A6ICD-10
America181624/109.408.70Physically active games90 min, 5 weekly, 10 weeksCESedentary taskConsistent with EGCIA2;A5;A6DSM-4
Iran1917NR8.318.29Selected exercise program90 min, 3 weekly, 8 weeksCENININIA4;A5SNAP-4
China161632/08.938.87Table tennis exercise70 min, 2 weekly, 12 weeksCMTNININIA2;A3;A4DSM-4
Korea6612/010.4610.50Combined exercise program60 min, 3 weekly, 12 weeksCENININIA4DSM-4
Switzerland242238/810.4610.50Exergame (sports games)15 min, 1 weekly, 1 weekAAEWatch videoConsistent with EGCIA4;A5;A6ICD-10
Switzerland282343/810.4610.39Exergame for physical and cognitive challenges30 min, 3 weekly, 8 weeksCMTWatch videoConsistent with EGCIA5;A6ICD-10
Tunisia202036/414.514.20Taekwondo30 min, 2 weekly, 1.5 yearsCMTTraditional physical education classesConsistent with EGTAEA2;A4;A5;A6DSM-4
Netherlands39CG1:36
CG2:37
85/279.96CG1:9.11
CG2:9.80
Neurofeedback (theta/beta training)20 min, 3 weekly, 10–12 weeksNFBCG1: methylphenidate
CG2: aerobic exercise
CG1:NR
CG2:20 min
3 weekly, 10–12 weeks
CG1:
PCT
CG2:
TAE
A2;A5;A6DSM-4
Iran101020/0Elementary studentsElementary studentsSensory integration training45 min, 2 weekly, 6 weeksSITNININIA5Conner’s rating scale
Switzerland58NR12.8013.50Aerobic exercise20 min, 1 weekly, 1 weekAAEWatch videoConsistent with EGCIA5DSM-4
Egypt424254/3013.9013.80Aerobic exercises program40–50 min, 3 weekly, 10 weeksTAENININIA1;A2DSM-4
Spain9510/410.6510.20Equestrian therapy45 min, 2 weekly, 12 weeksHMSNININIA5;A6DSM-4
Tunisia20205/359.959.75Perceptual motor water exercise90 min, 3 weekly, 12 weeksPMTNININIA1;A5;A6Conner’s rating scale
America10498108/946.836.83Aerobic physical activity31 min, 5 weekly, 12 weeksTAESedentary taskConsistent with EGCIA2DSM-4
Australia11819/010.639.35Yoga60 min, 1 weekly, 20 weeksMBECooperative gamesConsistent with EGCIA2;A4DSM-4

Summary table of included reviews.

ADHD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; EG, experimental group; CG, control group; NR, no report; NI, no intervention; HMS, horsemanship; CBE, combination exercise; PMT, perceptual-motor training; CMT, cognitive-motor training; AE, aquatic exercise; MBE, mind-body exercise; AAE, acute aerobic exercise; TAE, traditional aerobic exercise; SIT, sensory integration training; NFB, neurofeedback; CI, cognitive intervention; PCT, pharmacotherapy; NIMH DISC-IV, national institute of mental health diagnostic interview schedule for children version IV; DSM-4 and DSM-5, diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition and fifth edition; ICD-10, international classification of diseases, tenth revision; SNAP-4, Swanson, Nolan and Pelham rating scale, fourth edition; A1, motor ability; A2, attention problems; A3, social problems; A4, cognitive flexibility; A5, inhibition switching; A6, working memory.

3.3. Risk of bias

Eighteen studies (58.1%) had a low risk of bias with respect to random sequence generation. Twenty-one studies (67.7%) had a low risk of bias with respect to allocation concealment. Sixteen studies (51.6%) had a low risk of bias with respect to the blinding of participants and personnel. Twenty-four studies (77.4%) had a low risk of bias with respect to the blinding of outcome assessments. Twenty-nine studies (93.5%) had a low risk of bias with respect to incomplete outcome data. Thirty studies (96.8%) had a low risk of bias with respect to selective reporting. Other biases are not known. Details of the evaluation of bias results for the included literature are shown in Figures 2A, B.

FIGURE 2

3.4. Network meta-analysis

The complete NMA figure will be presented in Supplementary Appendixes B1–6.

3.4.1. Motor ability

Seven studies (; ; ; ; ; ; ) reported on the motor ability of children with ADHD, and a total of nine interventions are involved. As shown in Table 2, the statistically significant results of the network meta-analysis were as follows: Perceptual-motor training [MD = 5.26, 95% CI = (1.14, 9.38)], traditional aerobic exercise [MD = 4.74, 95% CI = (0.31, 9.16)], and aquatic exercise [MD = 3.66, 95% CI = (0.73, 6.60)], which were more effective than that with no intervention. Compared with pharmacotherapy, perceptual-motor training [MD = 9.76, 95% CI = (4.92, 14.60)], traditional aerobic exercise [MD = 9.23, 95% CI = (1.76, 16.70)], aquatic exercise [MD = 8.16, 95% CI = (1.18, 15.15)], combination exercise [MD = 7.38, 95% CI = (0.17, 14.59)] were more effective. Compared with neurofeedback, perceptual-motor training [MD = 28.68, 95% CI = (18.20, 39.15)], traditional aerobic exercise [MD = 28.15, 95% CI = (16.07, 40.23)], aquatic exercise [MD = 27.08, 95% CI = (15.46, 38.70)], combination exercise [MD = 26.30, 95% CI = (14.54, 38.05)], cognitive-motor training [MD = 26.11, 95% CI = (13.27, 38.96)], and horsemanship [MD = 24.91, 95% CI = (11.12, 38.70)] were more effective. In SUCRA, perceptual-motor training ranked first in terms of the probability of the effect of different interventions on motor performance (SUCRA: 82.7%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C1).

TABLE 2

PMTTAEAECBECMTHMSNIPCTNFB
PMT−0.53 (−6.56, 5.50)−1.60 (−6.65, 3.46)−2.38 (−7.72, 2.96)−2.57 (−10.02, 4.89)−3.77 (−12.74, 5.20)−5.26 (−9.38, 1.14)−9.76 (−14.60, −4.92)−28.68 (−39.15, −18.20)
0.53 (−5.50, 6.56)TAE−1.07 (−6.34, 4.20)−1.85 (−7.43, 3.72)−2.04 (−6.45, 2.37)−3.24 (−13.86, 7.38)−4.74 (−9.16, −0.31)−9.23 (−16.70, −1.76)−28.15 (−40.23, −16.07)
1.60 (−3.46, 6.65)1.07 (−4.20, 6.34)AE−0.78 (−5.27, 3.71)−0.97 (−7.81, 5.87)−2.17 (−12.45, 8.11)−3.66 (−6.60, −0.73)−8.16 (−15.15, −1.18)−27.08 (−38.70, −15.46)
2.38 (−2.96, 7.72)1.85 (−3.72, 7.43)0.78 (−3.71, 5.27)CBE−0.18 (−7.29, 6.92)−1.39 (−11.82, 9.05)−2.88 (−6.28, 0.52)−7.38 (−14.59, −0.17)−26.30 (−38.05, −14.54)
2.57 (−4.89, 10.02)2.04 (−2.37, 6.45)0.97 (−5.87, 7.81)0.18 (−6.92, 7.29)CMT−1.20 (−12.51, 10.10)−2.70 (−8.93, 3.54)−7.19 (−15.61, 1.22)−26.11 (−38.96, −13.27)
3.77 (−5.20, 12.74)3.24 (−7.38, 13.86)2.17 (−8.11, 12.45)1.39 (−9.05, 11.82)1.20 (−10.10, 12.51)HMS−1.50 (−11.36, 8.37)−5.99 (−13.55, 1.56)−24.91 (−38.70, −11.12)
5.26 (1.14, 9.38)4.74 (0.31, 9.16)3.66 (0.73, 6.60)2.88 (−0.52, 6.28)2.70 (−3.54, 8.93)1.50 (−8.37, 11.36)NI−4.50 (−10.85, 1.86)−23.42 (−34.67, −12.16)
9.76 (4.92, 14.60)9.23 (1.76, 16.70)8.16 (1.18, 15.15)7.38 (0.17, 14.59)7.19 (−1.22, 15.61)5.99 (−1.56, 13.55)4.50 (−1.86, 10.85)PCT−18.92 (−30.45, −7.38)
28.68 (18.20, 39.15)28.15 (16.07, 40.23)27.08 (15.46, 38.70)26.30 (14.54, 38.05)26.11 (13.27, 38.96)24.91 (11.12, 38.70)23.42 (12.16, 34.67)18.92 (7.38, 30.45)NFB

League table on motor ability.

The bold values represent the signify statistical significance.

3.4.2. Attention problems

Fourteen studies (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) reported on the attention problems of children with ADHD, and a total of ten interventions are involved. As shown in Table 3, there is no statistical significance for each intervention in the network meta-analysis results. In SUCRA, aquatic exercise ranked first in terms of the probability of the effect of different interventions on the reduction of attention problems (SUCRA: 80.9%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C2).

TABLE 3

AEPCTCMTHMSMBENICBENFBCITAE
AE4.71 (−35.80, 45.21)8.63 (−24.77, 42.03)9.97 (−23.99, 43.92)19.34 (−22.39, 61.07)18.81 (−8.53, 46.16)21.55 (−19.94, 63.04)24.65 (−31.56, 80.87)25.21 (−11.07, 61.48)26.82 (−5.04, 58.68)
−4.71 (−45.21, 35.80)PCT3.92 (−31.05, 38.89)5.26 (−21.49, 32.01)14.63 (−27.98, 57.24)14.11 (−16.82, 45.03)16.84 (−26.25, 59.94)19.95 (−27.85, 67.74)20.50 (−17.47, 58.47)22.11 (−10.69, 54.92)
−8.63 (−42.03, 24.77)−3.92 (−38.89, 31.05)CMT1.34 (−27.84, 30.51)10.71 (−23.14, 44.56)10.18 (−11.66, 32.03)12.92 (−21.17, 47.01)16.02 (−35.98, 68.03)16.58 (−10.65, 43.81)18.19 (−0.52, 36.90)
−9.97 (−43.92, 23.99)−5.26 (−32.01, 21.49)−1.34 (−30.51, 27.84)HMS9.37 (−29.70, 48.45)8.85 (−12.40, 30.10)11.58 (−27.74, 50.91)14.68 (−35.98, 65.35)15.24 (−18.38, 48.86)16.85 (−10.79, 44.49)
−19.34 (−61.07, 22.39)−14.63 (−57.24, 27.98)−10.71 (−44.56, 23.14)−9.37 (−48.45, 29.70)MBE−0.53 (−35.16, 34.11)2.21 (−26.80, 31.22)5.31 (−51.68, 62.30)5.87 (−14.46, 26.19)7.48 (−21.28, 36.24)
−18.81 (−46.16, 8.53)−14.11 (−45.03, 16.82)−10.18 (−32.03, 11.66)−8.85 (−30.10, 12.40)0.53 (−34.11, 35.16)NI2.74 (−32.04, 37.51)5.84 (−44.80, 56.48)6.39 (−21.77, 34.55)8.00 (−12.63, 28.64)
−21.55 (−63.04, 19.94)−16.84 (−59.94, 26.25)−12.92 (−47.01, 21.17)−11.58 (−50.91, 27.74)−2.21 (−31.22, 26.80)−2.74 (−37.51, 32.04)CBE3.10 (−54.17, 60.38)3.66 (−17.09, 24.41)5.27 (−23.63, 34.17)
−24.65 (−80.87, 31.56)−19.95 (−67.74, 27.85)−16.02 (−68.03, 35.98)−14.68 (−65.35, 35.98)−5.31 (−62.30, 51.68)−5.84 (−56.48, 44.80)−3.10 (−60.38, 54.17)NFB0.56 (−52.95, 54.06)2.17 (−47.69, 52.02)
−25.21 (−61.48, 11.07)−20.50 (−58.47, 17.47)−16.58 (−43.81, 10.65)−15.24 (−48.86, 18.38)−5.87 (−26.19, 14.46)−6.39 (−34.55, 21.77)−3.66 (−24.41, 17.09)−0.56 (−54.06, 52.95)CI1.61 (−18.67, 21.89)
−26.82 (−58.68, 5.04)−22.11 (−54.92, 10.69)−18.19 (−36.90, 0.52)−16.85 (−44.49, 10.79)−7.48 (−36.24, 21.28)−8.00 (−28.64, 12.63)−5.27 (−34.17, 23.63)−2.17 (−52.02, 47.69)−1.61 (−21.89, 18.67)TAE

League table on attention problems.

3.4.3. Social problems

Five studies (; ; ; ; ) reported on the social problems of children with ADHD, and a total of six interventions are involved. As shown in Table 4, the statistically significant results of the network meta-analysis were as follows: Aquatic exercise [MD = −3.70, 95% CI = (−5.03, −2.37)] was more effective than that with no intervention. In the SUCRA, aquatic exercise ranked first in terms of the probability of the effect of different interventions on the reduction of social problems (SUCRA: 79.4%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C3).

TABLE 4

HMSPCTAETAECMTNI
HMS1.83 (−3.46, 7.12)6.41 (−12.08, 24.91)8.10 (−10.78, 26.98)8.48 (−10.39, 27.35)10.11 (−8.34, 28.57)
−1.83 (−7.12, 3.46)PCT4.58 (−14.65, 23.82)6.27 (−13.33, 25.88)6.65 (−12.95, 26.25)8.28 (−10.91, 27.48)
−6.41 (−24.91, 12.08)−4.58 (−23.82, 14.65)AE1.69 (−2.53, 5.90)2.07 (−2.11, 6.25)3.70 (2.37, 5.03)
−8.10 (−26.98, 10.78)−6.27 (−25.88, 13.33)−1.69 (−5.90, 2.53)TAE0.38 (−0.13, 0.89)2.01 (−1.99, 6.01)
−8.48 (−27.35, 10.39)−6.65 (−26.25, 12.95)−2.07 (−6.25, 2.11)−0.38 (−0.89, 0.13)CMT1.63 (−2.33, 5.60)
−10.11 (−28.57, 8.34)−8.28 (−27.48, 10.91)3.70 (5.03,2.37)−2.01 (−6.01, 1.99)−1.63 (−5.60, 2.33)NI

League table on social problems.

The bold values represent the signify statistical significance.

3.4.4. Cognitive flexibility

Fourteen studies (; ; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) reported on the cognitive flexibility of children with ADHD, and a total of nine interventions are involved. As shown in Table 5, the statistically significant results of the network meta-analysis were as follows: Aquatic exercise [MD = 19.65, 95% CI = (3.91, 35.40)] was more effective than combination exercise. Aquatic exercise [MD = 22.16, 95% CI = (8.36, 35.97)] was more effective than that with no intervention. Compared to traditional aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise [MD = 43.47, 95% CI = (17.05, 69.89)], acute aerobic exercise [MD = 32.10, 95% CI = (1.38, 62.82)], and cognitive-motor training [MD = 30.06, 95% CI = (16.23, 43.89)] were more effective. In SUCRA, aquatic exercise ranked first in terms of the probability of the effect of different interventions on cognitive flexibility (SUCRA: 86.6%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C4).

TABLE 5

AEMBECIAAECMTPCTCBENITAE
AE−8.89 (−43.34, 25.57)−10.17 (−42.15, 21.80)−11.37 (−36.93, 14.19)−13.41 (−35.97, 9.15)−14.24 (−43.18, 14.70)−19.65 (−35.40, −3.91)−22.16 (−35.97, −8.36)−43.47 (−69.89, −17.05)
8.89 (−25.57, 43.34)MBE−1.28 (−14.23, 11.66)−2.48 (−25.53, 20.56)−4.52 (−40.47, 31.42)−5.36 (−45.57, 34.85)−10.77 (−43.23, 21.70)−13.27 (−44.90, 18.35)−34.58 (−72.95, 3.78)
10.17 (−21.80, 42.15)1.28 (−11.66, 14.23)CU−1.20 (−20.34, 17.94)−3.24 (−36.81, 30.33)−4.07 (−42.18, 34.04)−9.48 (−39.30, 20.34)−11.99 (−40.89, 16.91)−33.30 (−69.45, 2.86)
11.37 (−14.19, 36.93)2.48 (−20.56, 25.53)1.20 (−17.94, 20.34)AAE−2.04 (−29.60, 25.51)−2.87 (−35.80, 30.05)−8.28 (−31.11, 14.54)−10.79 (−32.42, 10.84)−32.10 (−62.82, −1.38)
13.41 (−9.15, 35.97)4.52 (−31.42, 40.47)3.24 (−30.33, 36.81)2.04 (−25.51, 29.60)CMT−0.83 (−19.03, 17.37)−6.24 (−25.63, 13.15)−8.75 (−26.60, 9.10)−30.06 (−43.89, −16.23)
14.24 (−14.70, 43.18)5.36 (−34.85, 45.57)4.07 (−34.04, 42.18)2.87 (−30.05, 35.80)0.83 (−17.37, 19.03)PCT−5.41 (−31.95, 21.13)−7.92 (−33.36, 17.52)−29.23 (−52.08, −6.37)
19.65 (3.91, 35.40)10.77 (−21.70, 43.23)9.48 (−20.34, 39.30)8.28 (−14.54, 31.11)6.24 (−13.15, 25.63)5.41 (−21.13, 31.95)CBE−2.51 (−10.09, 5.07)−23.82 (−47.58, −0.05)
22.16 (8.36, 35.97)13.27 (−18.35, 44.90)11.99 (−16.91, 40.89)10.79 (−10.84, 32.42)8.75 (−9.10, 26.60)7.92 (−17.52, 33.36)2.51 (−5.07, 10.09)NI−21.31 (−43.83, 1.21)
43.47 (17.05, 69.89)34.58 (−3.78, 72.95)33.30 (−2.86, 69.45)32.10 (1.38, 62.82)30.06 (16.23, 43.89)29.23 (6.37, 52.08)23.82 (0.05, 47.58)21.31 (−1.21,43.83)TAE

League table on cognitive flexibility.

The bold values represent the signify statistical significance.

3.4.5. Inhibition switching

Eighteen studies (; , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) reported the inhibition switching of children with ADHD, and a total of 13 interventions are involved. As shown in Table 6, the statistically significant results of the network meta-analysis were as follows: Cognitive-motor training [MD = −67.14, 95% CI = (−130.91, −3.37)] was more effective than cognitive intervention. Compared with aquatic exercise, cognitive-motor training [MD = −146.75, 95% CI = (−257.37, 36.13)], perceptual-motor training [MD = −143.08, 95% CI = (−262.96, 23.19)], combination exercise [MD = −129.35, 95% CI = (−232.92, 25.77)], and acute aerobic exercise [MD = −112.14, 95% CI = (−214.20, 10.09)] were more effective. In SUCRA, cognitive-motor training ranked first in the probability of the effect of different interventions on inhibition switching (SUCRA: 83.5%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C5).

TABLE 6

CMTPMTCBENFBAAETAEMBEPCTSITHMSNICIAE
CMT3.67 (−86.92, 94.26)17.40 (−56.88, 91.68)31.40 (−57.04, 119.83)34.61 (−27.75, 96.96)44.27 (−29.38, 117.91)46.46 (−66.93, 159.84)46.34 (−33.15, 125.82)54.59 (−54.83, 164.00)55.91 (−53.49, 165.31)60.86 (−3.10, 124.82)67.14 (3.37, 130.91)146.75 (36.13, 257.37)
−3.67 (−94.26, 86.92)PMT13.73 (−76.62, 104.09)27.73 (−56.77, 112.23)30.94 (−53.19, 115.06)40.60 (−61.56, 142.76)42.79 (−86.99, 172.56)42.67 (−62.63, 147.96)50.92 (−67.83, 169.66)52.24 (−66.49, 170.97)57.19 (−21.00, 135.38)63.47 (−26.71, 153.65)143.08 (23.19, 262.96)
−17.40 (−91.68, 56.88)−13.73 (−104.09, 76.62)CBE13.99 (−83.90, 111.89)17.20 (−42.57, 76.98)26.86 (−69.39, 123.12)29.05 (−83.68, 141.79)28.93 (−71.39, 129.26)37.18 (−65.44, 139.81)38.51 (−64.12, 141.13)43.46 (−7.17, 94.08)49.74 (−13.24, 112.71)129.35 (25.77, 232.92)
−31.40 (−119.83, 57.04)−27.73 (−112.23, 56.77)−13.99 (−111.89, 83.90)NFB3.21 (−85.40, 91.82)12.87 (−76.97, 102.71)15.06 (−117.29, 147.41)14.94 (−77.44, 107.32)23.19 (−102.51, 148.89)24.51 (−101.17, 150.20)29.46 (−59.43, 118.36)35.74 (−58.02, 129.50)115.35 (−11.46, 242.17)
−34.61 (−96.96, 27.75)−30.94 (−115.06, 53.19)−17.20 (−76.98, 42.57)−3.21 (−91.82, 85.40)AAE9.66 (−76.47, 95.79)11.85 (−91.48, 115.18)11.73 (−78.85, 102.31)19.98 (−80.77, 120.72)21.30 (−79.43, 122.03)26.25 (−23.46, 75.96)32.53 (−12.79, 77.85)112.14 (10.09, 214.20)
−44.27 (−117.91, 29.38)−40.60 (−142.76, 61.56)−26.86 (−123.12, 69.39)−12.87 (−102.71, 76.97)−9.66 (−95.79, 76.47)TAE2.19 (−127.24, 131.62)2.07 (−84.58, 88.71)10.32 (−114.78, 135.42)11.64 (−113.44, 136.73)16.59 (−71.61, 104.79)22.87 (−66.54, 112.28)102.48 (−23.74, 228.71)
−46.46 (−159.84, 66.93)−42.79 (−172.56, 86.99)−29.05 (−141.79, 83.68)−15.06 (−147.41, 117.29)−11.85 (−115.18, 91.48)−2.19 (−131.62, 127.24)MBE−0.12 (−132.62, 132.38)8.13 (−133.02, 149.27)9.45 (−131.68, 150.59)14.40 (−95.82, 124.62)20.68 (−74.26, 115.62)100.29 (−41.87, ‘242.45)
−46.34 (−125.82, 33.15)−42.67 (−147.96, 62.63)−28.93 (−129.26, 71.39)−14.94 (−107.32, 77.44)−11.73 (−102.31,7 8.85)−2.07 (−88.71, 84.58)0.12 (−132.38, 132.62)PCT8.25 (−119.96, 136.45)9.57 (−118.62, 137.76)14.52 (−78.01, 107.05)20.80 (−72.98, 114.59)100.41 (−28.93, 229.76)
−54.59 (−164.00, 54.83)−50.92 (−169.66, 67.83)−37.18 (−139.81, 65.44)−23.19 (−148.89, 102.51)−19.98 (−120.72, 80.77)−10.32 (−135.42, 114.78)−8.13 (−149.27, 133.02)−8.25 (−136.45, 119.96)SIT1.32 (−125.96, 128.60)6.27 (−83.86,96.41)12.55 (−93.37, 118.48)92.16 (−36.14, 220.47)
−55.91 (−165.31, 53.49)−52.24 (−170.97, 66.49)−38.51 (−141.13, 64.12)−24.51 (−150.20, 101.17)−21.30 (−122.03, 79.43)−11.64 (−136.73, 113.44)−9.45 (−150.59, 131.68)−9.57 (−137.76, 118.62)−1.32 (−128.60, 125.96)HMS4.95 (−85.17, 95.07)11.23 (−94.67, 117.13)90.84 (−37.47, 219.15)
−60.86 (−124.82, 3.10)−57.19 (−135.38, 21.00)−43.46 (−94.08, 7.17)−29.46 (−118.36, 59.43)−26.25 (−75.96, 23.46)−16.59 (−104.79, 71.61)−14.40 (−124.62, 95.82)−14.52 (−107.05, 78.01)−6.27 (−96.41, 83.86)−4.95 (−95.07, 85.17)NI6.28 (−52.26, 64.82)85.89 (−5.83, 177.62)
−67.14 (−130.91,
−3.37)
−63.47 (−153.65, 26.71)−49.74 (−112.71, 13.24)−35.74 (−129.50, 58.02)−32.53 (−77.85, 12.79)−22.87 (−112.28, 66.54)−20.68 (−115.62, 74.26)−20.80 (−114.59, 72.98)−12.55 (−118.48, 93.37)−11.23 (−117.13, 94.67)−6.28 (−64.82, 52.26)CI79.61 (−27.84, 187.06)
146.75 (−257.37,
−36.13)
−143.08 (−262.96,
−23.19)
−129.35 (−232.92,
−25.77)
−115.35 (−242.17, 11.46)−112.14 (−214.20,
−10.09)
−102.48 (−228.71, 23.74)−100.29 (−242.45, 41.87)−100.41 (−229.76, 28.93)−92.16 (−220.47, 36.14)−90.84 (−219.15, 37.47)−85.89 (−177.62, 5.83)−79.61 (−187.06, 27.84)AE

League table on inhibition switching.

The bold values represent the signify statistical significance.

3.4.6. Working memory

Ten studies (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) reported on the working memory of children with ADHD, and a total of nine interventions are involved. As shown in Table 7, the statistically significant results of the network meta-analysis were as follows: cognitive-motor training [MD = 9.45, 95% CI = (2.39, 16.51)] was more effective than traditional aerobic exercise. In SUCRA, perceptual-motor training ranked first in terms of the probability of effectiveness of different interventions on working memory (SUCRA: 73.3%, as shown in Supplementary Appendix C6).

TABLE 7

PMTMBEHMSCMTCBEAAECINIPCTNFBTAE
PMT−1.18 (−21.98, 19.62)−1.57 (−14.75, 11.60)−3.71 (−21.19, 13.78)−3.24 (−16.43, 9.95)−4.83 (−22.95, 13.30)−4.82 (−19.54, 9.90)−4.85 (−14.15, 4.45)−8.59 (−26.80, 9.61)−10.24 (−29.38, 8.90)−13.16 (−31.95, 5.64)
1.18 (−19.62, 21.98)MBE−0.39 (−21.20, 20.42)−2.53 (−19.99, 14.94)−2.06 (−18.16, 14.04)−3.64 (−21.82, 14.53)−3.64 (−18.33, 11.05)−3.67 (−22.28, 14.94)−7.41 (−25.62, 10.79)−9.06 (−28.22, 10.09)−11.98 (−30.80, 6.85)
1.57 (−11.60, 14.75)0.39 (−20.42, 21.20)HMS−2.13 (−19.63, 15.36)−1.67 (−14.88, 11.54)−3.25 (−21.39, 14.89)−3.25 (−17.98, 11.49)−3.28 (−12.61, 6.05)−7.02 (−25.24, 11.20)−8.67 (−27.82, 10.48)−11.58 (−30.39, 7.22)
3.71 (−13.78, 21.19)2.53 (−14.94, 19.99)2.13 (−15.36, 19.63)CMT0.47 (−11.03, 11.96)−1.12 (−15.27, 13.03)−1.11 (−10.55, 8.32)−1.14 (−15.95, 13.67)−4.89 (−10.07, 0.30)−6.54 (−14.44, 1.37)−9.45 (−16.51, −2.39)
3.24 (−9.95, 16.43)2.06 (−14.04, 18.16)1.67 (−11.54, 14.88)−0.47 (−11.96, 11.03)CBE−1.58 (−14.10, 10.93)−1.58 (−8.15, 4.99)−1.61 (−10.97, 7.75)−5.35 (−17.92, 7.21)−7.00 (−20.89, 6.89)−9.92 (−23.32, 3.49)
4.83 (−13.30, 22.95)3.64 (−14.53, 21.82)3.25 (−14.89, 21.39)1.12 (−13.03, 15.27)1.58 (−10.93, 14.10)AAE0.00 (−10.70, 10.71)−0.02 (−15.60, 15.55)−3.77 (−18.80, 11.27)−5.42 (−21.58, 10.75)−8.33 (−24.10, 7.44)
4.82 (−9.90, 19.54)3.64 (−11.05, 18.33)3.25 (−11.49, 17.98)1.11 (−8.32, 10.55)1.58 (−4.99, 8.15)−0.00 (−10.71, 10.70)CI−0.03 (−11.45, 11.39)−3.77 (−14.52, 6.97)−5.42 (−17.71, 6.86)−8.34 (−20.10, 3.42)
4.85 (−4.45, 14.15)3.67 (−14.94, 22.28)3.28 (−6.05, 12.61)1.14 (−13.67, 15.95)1.61 (−7.75, 10.97)0.02 (−15.55, 15.60)0.03 (−11.39, 11.45)NI−3.74 (−19.40, 11.91)−5.39 (−22.13, 11.34)−8.31 (−24.64, 8.03)
8.59 (−9.61, 26.80)7.41 (−10.79, 25.62)7.02 (−11.20, 25.24)4.89 (−0.30, 10.07)5.35 (−7.21, 17.92)3.77 (−11.27, 18.80)3.77 (−6.97, 14.52)3.74 (−11.91, 19.40)PCT1.65 (−8.12, 4.82)−4.56 (−10.51, 1.38)
10.24 (−8.90, 29.38)9.06 (−10.09, 28.22)8.67 (−10.48, 27.82)6.54 (−1.37, 14.44)7.00 (−6.89, 20.89)5.42 (−10.75, 21.58)5.42 (−6.86, 17.71)5.39 (−11.34, 22.13)1.65 (−4.82, 8.12)NFB−2.91 (−9.39, 3.56)
13.16 (−5.64, 31.95)11.98 (−6.85, 30.80)11.58 (−7.22, 30.39)9.45 (2.39, 16.51)9.92 (−3.49, 23.32)8.33 (−7.44, 24.10)8.34 (−3.42, 20.10)8.31 (−8.03, 24.64)4.56 (−1.38, 10.51)2.91 (−3.56, 9.39)TAE

League table on working memory.

The bold values represent the signify statistical significance.

3.5. Publication bias

As is vividly shown in Supplementary Appendix D, funnel plots were employed to detect publication bias, while no significant publication bias was revealed by the visual inspection of funnel plots for all indicators.

4. Discussion

In this study, motor ability, attention problems, social problems, cognitive flexibility, inhibition switching, and working memory are adopted as outcome indicators to compare the effects of different interventions on each outcome indicator. As shown in Table 8, it has been shown in our current study that perceptual-motor training, traditional aerobic exercise, as well as aquatic exercise were the top three interventions for benign development in motor ability. When it comes to attention problems, aquatic exercise, pharmacotherapy, and cognitive-motor training were the top three interventions to reduce attention problems. As for the indicator of the social problem, horsemanship, pharmacotherapy, and aquatic exercise were the top three interventions in reducing social problems. In terms of cognitive flexibility, aquatic exercise, mind-body exercise, and cognitive intervention were the top three interventions to increase cognitive flexibility. For inhibition switching, cognitive-motor training, perceptual-motor training, and combination exercise were the top three interventions to reduce inhibition switching time. Finally, in terms of working memory indicators, perceptual-motor training, pharmacotherapy, and horsemanship were the top three interventions for enhancing working memory. It has been shown in our findings that there is no single intervention most effective across all outcome indicators, and different interventions may be more effective for different outcomes.

TABLE 8

InterventionMotor abilityAttention problemsSocial problems
SucraRankSucraRankSucraRank
Horsemanship51.8663.1479.41
Combination exercise60.94407//
Perceptual-motor training82.71////
Cognitive-motor training58.1568.5329.35
Aquatic exercise69380.9163.73
Mind-body exercise//45.15//
Acute aerobic exercise//////
Traditional aerobic exercise79.6223.11048.74
Sensory integration training//////
Neurofeedback0936.38//
Cognitive intervention//28.99//
Pharmacotherapy15.5872.4264.62
No intervention32.4741.7614.46
InterventionCognitive flexibilityInhibition switchingWorking memory
SucraRankSucraRankSucraRank
Horsemanship//431066.33
Combination exercise39.1771.5361.25
Perceptual-motor training//78273.31
Cognitive-motor training55.7583.5162.34
Aquatic exercise86.614.712//
Mind-body exercise65.7248.6766.92
Acute aerobic exercise60458551.16
Traditional aerobic exercise2948.9610.311
Sensory integration training//43.19//
Neurofeedback//58.2425.610
Cognitive intervention60.9330.11251.17
Pharmacotherapy53647.9833.49
No intervention28834.61148.38

Ranking of SUCRA probabilities for each outcome indicator.

Perceptual-motor training is the best physical activity intervention for children with ADHD regarding motor ability and working memory. This type of training combines physical activities such as coordination, balance, and strength with perceptual tasks (). Previous research has demonstrated a strong correlation between motor behavior and underlying perceptual processes (). In particular, when physical activity is designed to improve attention, it will contribute to developing executive functions (; ). By combining training activities with perceptual tasks, there is potential for an overall improvement in motor ability and working memory in children with ADHD ().

The aquatic exercise was the intervention with the highest frequency (4 sessions) in the top three rankings for all outcome indicators and the best physical activity intervention in terms of both attention problems and cognitive flexibility. Aquatic exercise is a form of physical activity in which the training process is completed in an aquatic environment. Due to the fluid nature of water, physical activity in an aquatic environment requires participants to constantly pay attention to the environment’s fluctuations (). At the same time, the buoyancy effect of water provides an auxiliary force, resistance, or support, which makes physical activity in the water environment safer, and children’s activity can be more active (). For example, swimming in water sports is a highly coordinated and lateralized sport requiring control of the upper and lower limbs in an aquatic environment (). This feature may allow for further activation of brain regions in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, thus contributing to improved attentional problems and cognitive flexibility ().

Horsemanship is the best physical activity intervention in terms of indicators of social problems. Horsemanship is a physical activity modality through learning activities with horses as a vehicle (). It has been shown that because equestrian learning requires participants to establish trust and frequent interaction with the horse, it contributes to developing participants’ social competence () and self-efficacy (). With this mutual relationship with the horse, children experience the horse’s feelings, which are then internalized in their behavior, enabling further development of empathy. This change will likely transfer to human interactions (). At the same time, the horse’s rhythmic activity also improves the participants’ physiological responses to stress and impulsivity (; ).

Cognitive-motor training is the best physical activity intervention for inhibiting conversion indicators. Cognitive-motor training is an intervention that integrates cognitive and motor tasks to promote an individual’s physical and mental health (). It has been shown that performing two or more cognitive-motor tasks simultaneously, such as computation in postural training and movement under computer games, will contribute more to improvements in cognitive domains compared to single-task training (; ; ) while reducing reaction time (). Cognitive-motor training requires participants to use both skill and cognitive effort to cope with unpredictable stimuli from the external environment (). Therefore, some researchers have suggested that this may improve participants’ executive functioning, including improvements in inhibitory switching (; ).

In conclusion, physical activity interventions have varying levels of effect on different indicators related to the symptoms of children with ADHD. This impact is dependent on the components, characteristics, and settings of the intervention. Nevertheless, physical activity interventions have been found to have numerous advantages across multiple indicators.

5. Strengths and limitations

One advantage of our current study is that we are the first network meta-analysis of the effects of physical activity on symptoms related to children with ADHD, which provides some scientific reference for selecting appropriate physical activity therapy for children with ADHD. The second advantage is that this study explored the effects of different physical activities on different symptom indicators in children with ADHD, which can provide some scientific reference for targeted treatment. The third advantage is that the current study only included studies from randomized controlled trials and excluded observational and cross-sectional studies, which helped to enhance the reliability of the findings. However, our reticulated meta-analysis also has some limitations that may affect the interpretation of the results. First, the relatively small number of available studies and the limited number and sample size of studies included in the analysis makes it difficult to give a particularly robust conclusion. Second, the outcome indicators that could be included are still limited. In the future, more outcome indicators of symptoms related to children with ADHD should be included based on an adequate number of studies. Finally, findings should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of studies and the limited evidence for direct comparisons of some interventions. Relevant studies should be further expanded to provide evidence with higher confidence.

6. Conclusion

Our current study showed that the overall performance of aquatic exercise and perceptual-motor training was better. However, different physical activity interventions have different validity and individual differences regarding their effects on different indicators in children with ADHD. Therefore, to ensure that the most suitable physical activity intervention is chosen, it is essential to accurately assess each child’s specific ADHD symptoms before implementation.

Statements

Author contributions

CL and DL conceived and designed the study. DL and DW collected the data. DL, DW, and WC analyzed and interpreted the data. DL drafted the manuscript. JY and WZ revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript, and contributed to the study conception and design.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the researchers and study participants for their contributions.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1139263/full#supplementary-material

References

Summary

Keywords

physical activity, children, ADHD, neurodevelopmental disorders, network meta-analysis

Citation

Li D, Wang D, Cui W, Yan J, Zang W and Li C (2023) Effects of different physical activity interventions on children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Neurosci. 17:1139263. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1139263

Received

06 January 2023

Accepted

17 February 2023

Published

20 March 2023

Volume

17 - 2023

Edited by

Zhe-an Shen, Xinjiang Institute of Technology, China

Reviewed by

Wan-Chun Su, National Institutes of Health (NIH), United States; Xiaofang Wang, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China; Miriam Kessi, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, China

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Chenmu Li,

This article was submitted to Neurodevelopment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics