Does Resistance Training Improve the Quality of Life of People With Parkinson's Disease? Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Application Through a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Loiane Cristina de Souza, Luiz Senna, Anderson D'Oliveira and 3 others
Resistance training improved quality of life in people with Parkinson's disease compared with doing nothing, but was no better than other exercise types like balance training or yoga.
The evidence is moderate, and the protocols varied so much that no single prescription can be recommended.
Key findings
1Against inactive controls, seven trials showed a significant pooled improvement in quality of life (SMD −0.81, CI −1.45 to −0.18, I² 88%, p = 0.01), rated moderate certainty.
2Against other exercise modalities (balance training, yoga, Tai Chi, power training, neurofunctional training), six trials showed no significant difference in quality of life (SMD −0.02, CI −0.44 to 0.41, I² 80%, p = 0.93), rated low certainty.
3Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested that interventions lasting more than 12 weeks showed a significant effect (SMD −0.93, p = 0.0002) while those of 12 weeks or less did not (SMD −0.70, p = 0.21), and that studies limited to H&Y stage ≤ 3 showed a significant effect (SMD −0.62, p = 0.0009) while those including stage ≤ 4 did not (SMD −0.01, p = 0.98).
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
High statistical heterogeneity in the primary comparison (I² 88%) means the pooled number is an average across very different protocols and should be read cautiously. Two research groups contributed four of the 14 included studies, creating overlapping samples and reducing the effective number of independent trials. Several exploratory subgroups rest on very few studies; the H&Y ≤ 2 subgroup is a single trial with 13 participants in the RT arm. Standard deviations for change scores had to be imputed in some studies because the original data were not reported, which the authors flag as a methodological limitation. With only 7 studies in the primary meta-analysis, the funnel plot cannot reliably detect publication bias. Most included studies had incomplete protocol reporting (CERT scores 11–17 out of 19), and adherence measurement was absent from nearly all. Blinding of participants and therapists was not feasible in exercise trials, though the authors note this is expected and not treated as a bias source.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding was provided by three Brazilian government research bodies: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina, and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. No commercial sponsor was involved.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the significant subgroup results (longer duration, earlier disease stage) as a prescription — the authors call them exploratory, some rest on a single trial, and the overall heterogeneity is high. Also, the null result against other exercise does not mean resistance training is ineffective; it means it is not superior to balance training, yoga, or Tai Chi, and the certainty for that comparison is low.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →