The quality of the trials and statistical variations in the between-group comparisons within each intervention category served as the foundation for our evidence synthesis. However, the majority of research merely used p-values to report the differences, which do not indicate the impact magnitude. One must depend on the groups' reported baseline and endpoint data in order to make clinical judgements. Effect sizes were only shown in three experiments. Many studies' small sample sizes also increased the risk of type II error, which occurs when actual group differences are not discernible. The research study based on primary data analysis for determine the research used smart PLS software and generate result included descriptive statistic, the correlation coefficient analysis also that explain the model. The fact that measurement timing and intervention durations differed is another drawback. Therefore, care must be used while interpreting the findings. The direction and quality of the evidence may shift with further experiments. There are still many unanswered questions about the therapeutic consequences of different therapies for children with cerebral palsy. There are two primary reasons why comprehensive treatment options could be challenging to assess in RCT designs. First, there may be significant individual differences in the intervention's active components. Second, since the objective of a comprehensive intervention is to increase involvement or activity rather than to target individual functions, it is more challenging to control confounders since activities at home, at school, or in kindergarten also have an impact on performance on various levels. More specifically defined therapies, including strength, aerobic, or balancing training, or riding, are easier to assess using a randomized design. The overall research found that direct and significant effect of physical therapy for improving motor function in children.