Parkinson's patients test walking poles for better mobility
NCT ID NCT07551661
First seen Jun 27, 2026 · Last updated Jun 27, 2026
Summary
This study tests whether using walking poles during an 8-week independent walking program can improve walking, movement, and thinking in people with Parkinson's disease. Forty participants will walk at least three times a week, either with or without poles. Researchers will measure changes in walking distance, speed, and balance before, after, and three months following the program.
What this could mean
Our plain-language read of the trial. This is informational only — not medical advice or a prediction.
- Active substance
- walking poles
- What this could lead to
- If it works, this could offer a simple, low-cost way to improve walking and balance for people with Parkinson's disease.
- What could go wrong
- This is a small, early-stage study with only 40 participants. The walking program is short (8 weeks), and results may not apply to everyone with Parkinson's. There is no guarantee of improvement.
This is an AI summary of the original study and may miss details. Read our disclaimer.
Get updates
Get notified about this study
Sign up to get updates when this study changes or when new studies for PARKINSON DISEASE (DISORDER) are added.
By submitting, you agree to our Terms of use
Conditions
The condition(s) this trial relates to.
As listed by the trial registrant
The condition terms exactly as the trial's registrant entered them.
Contacts and locations
Locations
-
East Tennessee State University
RECRUITINGJohnson City, Tennessee, 37614, United States
More trials for these conditions
Other studies related to the condition(s) this trial covers.
- Parkinson's pain: could a new Add-On drug bring relief?
- Could your own bone marrow cells help fight Parkinson's?
- Could gut microbes hold clues to Parkinson's?
- Brain implant for Parkinson's may raise fall risk — a study investigates
- Could hand exercises sharpen the mind in Parkinson's?
- Which balance test best predicts falls in Parkinson's? a head-to-head comparison