Table 2.

GRADE evidence profiles: fundamental movement skills (FMS) enhancing intervention versus usual care

Quality assessment							No. of participantsf		Absolute effect (95% CI)f	Quality	Importance
No. of studies	Study design	Risk of bias	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	INT	CON
Overall FMS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 20 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 2 to 40)
16	RCT and CT	Seriousa,b	Seriousc	Seriousd	Not serious	Publication biase	2103	1847	SMD 0.46 higher (0.28–0.65 higher)	Very low	Important
OCS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 8 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 1 to 20)
11	RCT and CT	Seriousa,b	Seriousc	Seriousd	Not serious	Publication biase	619	499	SMD 1.36 higher (0.80–1.91 higher)	Very low	Important
LMS (follow-up: range 6 weeks to 11 months; assessed with or converted to TGMD-2; standard score from 1 to 20)
10	RCT and CT	Seriousa,b	Seriousc	Seriousd	Not serious	Publication biase	796	572	SMD 0.94 higher (0.59–1.30 higher)	Very low	Important

GRADE Working Group grade of evidence

High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect

Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different

Low quality: Our confidence in the effect is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect

Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of the effect

CI confidence interval, CON control group, CT controlled trial, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System, INT intervention group, LMS Locomotor Subscale, OCS Object Control Subscale, RCT randomized controlled trial, SMD standardized mean difference

^aSerious because of no clear randomization procedures described

^bSerious because of selection bias (unclear or inadequate allocation concealment), detection bias (unclear blinding of data analysts), study integrity (unclear compliance with the intervention)

^cSerious because of statistical heterogeneity (I ² = 83–88%; p < 0.0001)

^dSerious because of important differences in implementation across settings

^eSerious because publication bias possible

^f3 and 1 studies for overall FMS and LMS scores, respectively, could not be included in meta-analyses