ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Nordic Walking as a Non-Pharmacological Intervention for Chronic Pain and Fatigue: Systematic Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Physical and Psychological Benefits of Nordic Walking in Patients with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Disentangling the association between chronic pain and sarcopenia-related traits: A bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Spine Kinematic Alterations in Nordic Walking Under Two Different Speeds of 3 and 5 km/h-A Pilot Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Values associated with Nordic Walking: An international cross-sectional survey among individuals practicing walking with poles.PloS one · 2024Article
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
objectiveWe aimed to analyze and summarize the available scientific evidence on the benefits of Nordic walking for people with chronic pain and fatigue. LITERATURE SURVEY: This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and conducted a comprehensive search across five databases using the PICO strategy. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized trials evaluating Nordic walking for pain and fatigue. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the PEDro scale. SYNTHESIS: A total of 14 studies were included, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 136 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies varied from fair (five studies) to good (nine studies). The interventions consisted of supervised Nordic walking sessions lasting 6 to 24 weeks, with a frequency of 2 to 4 days per week and duration of 25 to 75 min. The results of this review suggest that Nordic walking had beneficial effects in six of the eight studies that analyzed participant fatigue. However, Nordic walking did not show greater beneficial effects on fatigue than walking (two studies) or than not performing physical activity (one study). Additionally, six of the nine studies that examined the effects of Nordic walking on participants' perceptions of pain showed beneficial results. However, five studies that compared Nordic walking with control groups did not find any significant inter-group differences on pain.
conclusionsBased on our findings, Nordic walking exercise programs provide a potentially efficient method for alleviating pain and fatigue in people with chronic conditions. Its straightforwardness and ease of learning make it accessible to a broad spectrum of participants, which can result in higher adherence rates and lasting positive effects.
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.