SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2025
Effects of olympic combat sports on physical fitness in non-athlete students: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neural mechanisms and social support for mental health in old age by martial arts exercise.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Olympic combat sports (OCS) present complex physical characteristics where cardiorespiratory fitness, flexibility, postural balance, endurance, agility, speed, strength, and muscular power are determinants of physical fitness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of OCS interventions on selected physical fitness outcomes among school-aged and university students, compared with active or standard. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2024 and April 2025 using seven generic databases-PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, CINAHL Complete, Scopus, Web of Science (core collection), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database). The methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the PRISMA, TESTEX, RoB 2, and GRADE tools. The Hedge; sg effect sizes were computed. Potential sources of heterogeneity, such as subgroup analyses (type of control group, dosage training and age range), were chosen using a fixed-effects or random-effects model, with a minimum of three studies for the corresponding meta-analyses. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (code: CRD42023391433). Results: Of 1,539 records, 9 RCTs and 4 NRCTs with 1,314 participants were included. Six overall and three subgroup meta-analyses showed significant increases in standing long jump (ES = 1.04; Conclusion: The findings suggest that OCS can be a beneficial addition in standing long jump and sit-and-reach. It does not show improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness, MIHS and Sargent jump. However, with respect to dose and age range <60 min in university students is adequate to improve sit-and-reach. OCS is more effective in improving MIHS compared to physical education. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search.
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.