Kettlebell training in clinical practice: a scoping review
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026

Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
Neil J Meigh1, Justin W L Keogh1,2,3, Ben Schram1
11Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Institute of Health & Sport, Gold Coast, Queensland 4226 Australia.
Background:
A scoping review of scientific literature on the effects of kettlebell training. There are no authoritative guidelines or recommendations for using kettlebells within a primary care setting. Our review objectives were to identify the extent, range and nature of the available evidence, to report on the types of evidence currently available to inform clinical practice, to synthesise key concepts, and identify gaps in the research knowledge base.
Methods:
Following the PRISMA-ScR Checklist, we conducted a search of 10 electronic databases from inception to 1 February 2019. There were no exclusions in searching for publications. A single reviewer screened the literature and abstracted data from relevant publications. Articles were grouped and charted by concepts and themes relevant to primary care, and narratively synthesised. Effect sizes from longitudinal studies were identified or calculated, and randomised controlled trials assessed for methodological quality.
Results:
Eight hundred and twenty-nine records were identified to 1 February 2019. Four hundred and ninety-six were screened and 170 assessed for eligibility. Ninety-nine publications met the inclusion criteria. Effect sizes were typically trivial to small. One trial used a pragmatic hardstyle training program among healthy college-age participants. Two trials reported the effects of kettlebell training in clinical conditions. Thirty-three studies explicitly used 'hardstyle' techniques and 4 investigated kettlebell sport. Also included were 6 reviews, 22 clinical/expert opinions and 3 case reports of injury. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies using a modified Downs & Black checklist.
Conclusions:
A small number of longitudinal studies, which are largely underpowered and of low methodological quality, provide the evidence-informed therapist with little guidance to inform the therapeutic prescription of kettlebells within primary care. Confidence in reported effects is low to very low. The strength of recommendation for kettlebell training improving measures of physical function is weak, based on the current body of literature. Further research on reported effects is warranted, with inclusion of clinical populations and investigations of musculoskeletal conditions common to primary care. There is a need for an externally valid, standardised approach to the training and testing of kettlebell interventions, which better informs the therapeutic use of kettlebells in primary care.
Related Concept Videos
09:52Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
The Scope of Physics
Economies of Scope
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
10:23Equipment Setup and Artifact Removal for Simultaneous Electroencephalogram and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Clinical Review in Epilepsy
