ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluation of the utility of group-based physical activity among university students: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSedentary behaviours are a prevalent issue among university students worldwide. The negative impact of low physical activity (PA) levels among university students on mental and physical health is well-documented. Regular PA is linked to numerous health benefits and protects against non-communicable diseases. While group-based physical activity (GBPA) interventions show promise, their effectiveness in increasing PA levels among university students remains uncertain. This review aims to identify, evaluate and elucidate the key determinants of successful GBPA interventions tailored to this population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search articles from PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus via EBSCOhost, Africa-Wide, PsycInfo and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. We will perform article screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible studies in duplicate. The risk of bias in individual studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised control trials, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions for non-randomised interventional studies and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Exposure. We will conduct a narrative synthesis of the findings. If there is homogeneity of primary outcomes, we will perform a meta-analysis to appraise evidence across studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation will be used to synthesise the quality of evidence across studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review protocol; we will analyse published primary studies. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024553196.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.