Cited by 157Physical Activity and HealthDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and Testing

An umbrella review of randomized control trials on the effects of physical exercise on cognition

Open access
Ciria, Luis F., Román-Caballero, Rafael, Vadillo, Miguel A., Holgado, Darias, Luque-Casado, Antonio, Perakakis, Pandelis, Sanabria, Daniel·2023·Nature Human Behaviour

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Extensive research links regular physical exercise to an overall enhancement of cognitive function across the lifespan. Here we assess the causal evidence supporting this relationship in the healthy population, using an umbrella review of meta-analyses limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite most of the 24 reviewed meta-analyses reporting a positive overall effect, our assessment reveals evidence of low statistical power in the primary RCTs, selective inclusion of studies, publication bias and large variation in combinations of pre-processing and analytic decisions. In addition, our meta-analysis of all the primary RCTs included in the revised meta-analyses shows small exercise-related benefits (d = 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.28) that became substantially smaller after accounting for key moderators (that is, active control and baseline differences; d = 0.13, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.20), and negligible after correcting for publication bias (d = 0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.14). These findings suggest caution in claims and recommendations linking regular physical exercise to cognitive benefits in the healthy human population until more reliable causal evidence accumulates.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-023-01554-4

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Physical exercise has a small cognitive benefit (umbrella review).

    “Findings are in line with the small cognitive benefit shown in an umbrella review of RCTs on the effects of physical exercise on cognition.(170)”

    From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission (2024) · cites this paper as [170]

    The Influential variables and publication bias section (page not provided) reports a small estimated cognitive benefit after accounting for control activity and baseline differences (d = 0.13). But its publication-bias-adjusted estimate was negligible and the evidence for a positive effect inconclusive; the Discussion likewise calls the evidence inconclusive. Saying the review 'showed' a small benefit omits that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In that prior umbrella review, the effect became negligible after correcting for publication bias (d=0.05, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.14).

    “although this effect became negligible after correcting for publication bias (d=0.05, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.14).16”

    From Effectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: a systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The ‘Influential variables and publication bias’ section reports a bias-adjusted posterior mean of d = 0.05 with limits of −0.09 to 0.14. The citing sentence reproduces those values but calls the interval a 95% confidence interval; the paper identifies it as a 95% Bayesian credible interval (CrI). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Only one systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review) has examined the effect of exercise on cognition.

    “only one systematic review of systematic reviews (ie, an umbrella review) has examined the effect of exercise on cognition.16”

    From Effectiveness of exercise for improving cognition, memory and executive function: a systematic umbrella review and meta-meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction identifies this paper as an umbrella review examining meta-analytic reviews of exercise and cognition, and the Results say it selected 24 meta-analyses. Those passages support citing it as an example of such a review, but they do not establish that it was the only one. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The prior umbrella review was limited in scope because it exclusively focused on healthy populations and excluded individuals with cognitive impairment or chronic diseases.

    “Their findings, while valuable, remain limited in scope, as the review exclusively focused on healthy populations and excluded individuals who might derive the greatest benefit from exercise interventions, such as those with cognitive impairment or chronic diseases.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [80]80. Román-Caballero, R., Sanabria, D. & Ciria, L. F. Let's go beyond "the effect of" physical exercise and musical training on cognition: much more than a significant effect. PsyArXiv (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ciria, L. F., Román-Caballero, R., Vadillo, M. A., Holgado, D., Luque-Casado, A., Perakakis, P., & Sanabria, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
Corresponding author
Sanabria, Daniel
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2023-03-27
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
928-941
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4360999057
Cited by
157
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
27.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • BURJC Digital (King Juan Carlos University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion)
  • Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Biblos-e Archivo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Comunidad de Madrid - Atraccion de Talento
  • Spanish Ministery of Science and Innovation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
physical activity, cognitive function, exercise and cognition, umbrella review, publication bias, statistical power, active control, causal evidence, healthy population, cognitive enhancement
MeSH terms
Cognition, Health Status, Humans, Longevity, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Exercise, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review