SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2022
Golf and Physical Health: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment of golf-specific skill performance: a systematic review, 3D visualization, and standardized testing framework.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Pooled it
- "Walking around the golf course is the exercise you need": Exploring the acceptability of a golf on referral scheme amongst participants through post-programme focus groups.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- The influence of sex on shoulder and hip joint resting position and mobility in elite golfers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The social significance of golf in Finland in the year 2021 based on SROI analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo previous systematic review has examined the physical health benefits of playing golf or caddying.
objectiveTo establish the influence of golf participation and physical health in golfers and caddies. More specifically, the review intended to explore the domains of cardiovascular, metabolic and musculoskeletal health, in addition to body composition.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL databases in July 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Experimental (randomised controlled trials, quasi-experiment, pre-post) and non-experimental (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort) articles relating to health and golf, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals.
resultsOf the 572 articles initially identified, 109 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. Sixteen articles were rated 'good 'and seven 'fair'. The influence of golf on physical health was mixed, although various articles displayed improvements in balance, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and the ratio of HDL to total cholesterol within golfers. Caddies observed improvements in bone mineral density (BMD), stiffness index and strength. Most of the findings indicate that playing golf or caddying does not influence body mass index (BMI); however, playing golf can positively change other body composition markers such as lean and fat mass.
conclusionThis review demonstrated that golf participation may be an effective method for improving musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health, although mixed findings were observed. Moreover, limited longitudinal evidence suggests that playing golf can positively impact metabolic health and the influence on body composition may be parameter dependent. Additionally, the initial evidence suggests that caddying may improve musculoskeletal health. However, the studies included were limited by their methodological inconsistencies such as: study design, participant demographics and intervention prescription. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021267664.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.