Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionExercise ameliorates symptoms and may modify disease progression in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Climbing is an increasingly popular form of exercise with characteristics that may be well suited to addressing the symptoms of PD. This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate climbing-based intervention studies for PD.MethodsThis review was not registered. A literature search was conducted on July 1, 2025, using Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar.Results and discussionFive articles representing three studies and 102 distinct participants with PD met these criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using the 20-point Methodological Quality of Exercise Training Studies Scale. The results of the included articles were combined into a narrative synthesis. Methodologies of the reviewed articles included randomized controlled trials, pilot studies, and feasibility studies. The results suggested that climbing is an acceptable and feasible form of exercise for people with PD. Climbing may also ameliorate Parkinsonian motor symptoms, including symptoms measured using wearable technologies. Participant experiences of climbing and the effects on non-motor symptoms remain under-examined. Major limitations of the current literature are the small number of publications and small respective sample sizes. Future research examining the feasibility and physiological responses to different types of climbing, as well as comparing climbing to other exercise types and treatment approaches, may help clinicians establish recommendations related to therapeutic climbing for people with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.