Thirteen studies (1,051 participants, range 12 to 212) were included in the review. Eleven studies had a quality score of 50% or more (range 29% to 86%). Eleven studies reported groups were similar at baseline, 12 specified eligibility criteria, nine reported blinding of outcome assessors, five reported use of intention-to-treat analysis and four reported measures of variability. Dropout rates from the pole walking programmes ranged from 0% to 13% and in one study 25%. Drop-out rates were similar between studies (where reported). Eleven studies were RCTs and eight of these reported concealed randomisation.
All studies reported at least one beneficial effect of pole walking compared with the control group.
Cardiorespiratory measures: Significant improvements were reported for pole walking groups compared to control groups for endurance (six out of six studies), oxygen uptake measures (three out of five studies), rating of perceived exertion (two out of four studies) and heart rate and blood pressure (two out of five studies). No effects of pole walking were found for ankle brachial index measures (one study).
Functional status: Significant positive effects were reported for functional status in pole walking groups (two out of five studies). One study found greater improvements in a control group that used Lee-Silverman Voice Therapy than the pole walking group.
Pain: Significant improvements in pain scores were reported for pole walking groups compared to control (three out of five studies).
Psychosocial measures: Significant improvements in quality of life and well-being measures were reported for pole walking compared to control groups (six out of nine studies).
Results of other physical measures in fewer than five studies were reported. Injuries from pole walking were reported.