AI-generated research brief — verify at source
Resistance Training Improves Overall and Physical Quality of Life in Multiple Sclerosis
A meta-analysis of 13 trials found that resistance training produced a statistically significant improvement in overall quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis, representing a large pooled effect size (SMD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.03–2.47, p = 0.045), though the confidence interval was wide and the result only marginally significant. Physical health quality of life showed a more precisely estimated moderate benefit, while mental health improvements did not reach statistical significance.
What Was Studied
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether resistance training — as a non-pharmacological intervention — can meaningfully improve quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis, a chronic autoimmune condition known to compromise both physical functioning and mental wellbeing. The outcomes of interest spanned three dimensions: overall quality of life, and its physical and mental health components specifically.
How It Was Studied
Researchers conducted a comprehensive literature search across three databases — Scopus, Medline, and SPORTDiscus — to identify eligible trials. Both randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of resistance training on quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis were included. Data from 13 qualifying studies were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses to account for expected variability across trials. A meta-regression was also performed to test whether study duration was associated with the magnitude of the treatment effect.
What Was Observed
- Overall quality of life improved with resistance training, with a large but imprecisely estimated effect — the pooled standardized mean difference crossed the threshold of statistical significance only marginally (SMD = 1.25, 95% CI: 0.03–2.47, p = 0.045). The wide confidence interval indicates considerable uncertainty around this estimate.
- Physical health quality of life showed a statistically significant, moderate improvement that was estimated with greater precision than the overall outcome, suggesting a more reliable signal in this domain (SMD = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.05–0.53, p = 0.017).
- Mental health quality of life showed a small positive trend that did not reach statistical significance, and the confidence interval included zero, meaning no reliable conclusion about a true mental health benefit can be drawn from the current evidence (SMD = 0.23, 95% CI: −0.11–0.56, p = 0.184).
- Study duration was not associated with the size of the treatment effect in meta-regression analyses, suggesting that longer interventions did not systematically produce greater quality-of-life gains than shorter ones within this dataset.
Why This Matters
Multiple sclerosis is a chronic autoimmune condition for which disease-modifying therapies represent the primary treatment approach, yet quality of life remains substantially impaired for many patients. These findings indicate that resistance training may offer a meaningful complementary, non-pharmacological option — particularly for physical health dimensions of quality of life. The results also highlight that the evidence base is uneven across domains, with mental health benefits remaining statistically unresolved, pointing to an important gap that future research needs to address through standardized and adequately powered trial designs.
How to Read This Result
These findings suggest a potentially positive role for resistance training in multiple sclerosis, particularly for physical health outcomes, but the evidence is of medium quality given the inclusion of non-randomized trials, inconsistent effects across studies, and a marginally significant overall estimate with a wide confidence interval that warrants cautious interpretation.
Limitations
The mental health finding was not statistically significant and effects were inconsistent across individual studies, undermining confidence in that specific outcome. Importantly, the review pooled both randomized and non-randomized trials, which introduces variation in methodological rigor and increases the risk of bias influencing the aggregated results. The authors themselves emphasize that further high-quality, standardized, and adequately powered trials are required before these findings can reliably guide clinical practice.