“…Primary studies in these reviews ranged from 3-50 and were often either observational or interventions of low quality. In the current update, we located a further 25 systematic reviews -a 3.6-fold increase and essentially 3-4 new reviews per year (Alvarez-Bueno, Pesce, Cavero-Redondo, Sanchez-Lopez, Garrido-Miguel, et al, 2017;Alvarez-Bueno, Pesce, Cavero-Redondo, Sanchez-Lopez, Martinez-Hortelano, et al, 2017;Busch et al, 2014;Bustamante, Williams, & Davis, 2016;Cerrillo-Urbina et al, 2015;de Greeff, Bosker, Oosterlaan, Visscher, & Hartman, 2018;Den Heijer et al, 2017;Donnelly et al, 2016;Esteban-Cornejo, Tejero-Gonzalez, Sallis, & Veiga, 2015;Ferreira-Vorkapic et al, 2015;Jackson, Davis, Sands, Whittington, & Sun, 2016;Lees & Hopkins, 2013;Marques, Gomez, Martins, Catunda, & Sarmento, 2017;Marques, Santos, Hillman, & Sardinha, 2017;Martin et al, 2018;Mura, Vellante, Nardi, Machado, & Carta, 2015;Poitras et al, 2016;Rasberry et al, 2011; Ruiz-Ariza, Grao-Cruces, de Loureiro, & Martinez-Lopez, 2017;Singh, Uijtdewilligen, Twisk, van Mechelen, & Chinapaw, 2012;J. J. Smith et al, 2014;Spruit et al, 2016;Tan, Pooley, & Speelman, 2016;Verburgh, Konigs, Scherder, & Oosterlaan, 2014).…”