Locomotive syndrome, characterized by impaired mobility due to musculoskeletal disorders, poses a significant public health challenge, especially in the aging population. Locomotive syndrome limits physical activity, increases fall risk, leads to dependency, and diminishes quality of life. Effective interventions are urgently required. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of physical therapy in improving the symptoms of locomotive syndrome. A systematic evaluation of its effectiveness compared with other interventions is crucial for informing clinical practice and policy decisions. This systematic review and meta-analysis follows the PRISMA-P guidelines. Studies involving individuals diagnosed with locomotive syndrome, without restrictions on age, sex, or location, were included. The interventions that are reviewed encompass exercise programs, manual therapy, neuromuscular stimulation, and balance training, which are be compared with no intervention or alternative therapies. The primary outcomes include improvements in functional mobility and physical performance, a reduction in symptoms, and the progression of locomotive syndrome. Secondary outcomes include adherence to therapy, safety, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and psychological well-being. Randomized controlled and non-randomized controlled trials published in English were searched from PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PEDro, Ichushi Web, and the Thai-Journal Citation Index Center. Independent reviewers performed data extraction and assess the risk of bias. A meta-analyses was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software, with subgroup analyses to address heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. This review aims to provide robust evidence on the effectiveness of physical therapy in managing locomotive syndrome and to guide clinical practice and healthcare policy decisions.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Yes

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This systematic review protocol did not require ethical approval, as it involves no primary data collection and only synthesizes data from previously published studies. No human participants were directly involved, and all data used will be sourced from publicly available research.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Not Applicable

Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.