SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effects of boxing interventions on physical fitness and health-related quality of life in older people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Front Public Health · 2025-06-06

DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1589512PMID: 40547458

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; systematic-review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveThis systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the available body of published peer-reviewed studies on the effects of boxing (BOX) interventions on balance, cardiorespiratory fitness, motor function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in older people with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsA comprehensive search of the literature, including peer-reviewed randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, was conducted to December 2024 in the databases of PubMed, Medline, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (EBSCO), CINAHL Complete, Scopus, and Web of Science (core collection). A random-effects model was employed, and Hedge's g effect sizes (ES) were computed. The GRADE, RoB 2, ROBIN-1, TESTEX, and PRISMA tools evaluated the methodological quality and certainty of evidence. The protocol (code: CRD42024614097) was registered in PROSPERO.ResultsEight studies were included, with 100 older people with PD, of which only three could be meta-analyzed. No significant effects were evident (p = 0.05), which were small to moderate effects of BOX on ABC-Scale (ES = -0.56; p = 0.13), Timed Up-And-Go (TUG; ES = 0.24; p = 0.34), TUG dual task (ES = 0.20; p = 0.41), 6-min walking test (ES = 2.16; p = 0.23), and PD Quality of Life Questionnaire (ES = -0.009; p = 0.98).ConclusionBOX interventions do not significantly improve balance, cardiorespiratory fitness, and health-related quality of life in older people with PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.