A new review examines racket sports after 60, with promising table-tennis findings but limited comparisons and no guidance for orthopedic recovery.
On October 15, 2026, European Review of Aging and Physical Activity published a systematic review and network meta-analysis of racket sports in older adults. The review compared table tennis, badminton and tennis interventions in adults aged 60 and older. It found favorable estimates for several functional outcomes, with the clearest body of evidence involving table tennis.
The researchers assessed muscular strength and balance, along with cognitive function, aerobic capacity and flexibility. Their work adds to the evidence about racket activities and active aging. For readers considering these sports after a physical setback, understanding what the researchers compared matters as much as the results themselves.
The review brought together existing studies rather than conducting a new trial. The authors searched six databases through December 2025 and updated their search in August 2026. They included 13 trials reported in 14 publications. Their primary analysis involved 10 randomized trials and 469 participants.
Before this synthesis, the underlying evidence consisted of separate studies of racket-sport interventions. No included trial directly compared the sports with one another. That means the review did not have a head-to-head test in which participants were assigned to table tennis rather than badminton or tennis.
The evidence was also concentrated in table tennis. Badminton research was sparse. Tennis evidence came from one trial involving 16 men, and that trial had no non-exercise control group.
This background is important when reading a comparison across sports. A sport with more research can have a more developed evidence picture without necessarily being the better activity. Likewise, a sport with little research has not been shown to be ineffective.
The October review was an update to the research picture, not a replacement for earlier clinical guidance. It was not a clinical guideline and did not announce a new standard for choosing a racket sport.
The review authors wrote that racket-sport interventions “were associated with favorable effects on several functional outcomes in older adults.” Much of the detail behind that statement came from table tennis.
Table-tennis estimates favored the sport over non-exercise control in four of the five assessed domains. The reported standardized mean differences ranged from 0.82 to 1.42. The review described these findings as combined evidence, with direct evidence for aerobic capacity.
A non-exercise control comparison asks a specific question: how did the studied sport intervention compare with the control condition? It does not answer the separate question of which racket sport produces the best results.
The numerical estimates also need the right frame. Standardized mean differences describe differences between study groups. They are not percentages of improvement and should not be read as predicted gains for an individual.
The authors also compared table tennis with active-exercise alternatives. They reported a standardized mean difference of 0.89 for muscular strength and 1.16 for cognitive function. Both estimates were based on combined evidence.
These comparisons matter because they are not simply sport versus non-exercise. They ask how table tennis performed against an exercise comparator within the available research.
Even so, “active exercise” should not be treated as another name for badminton or tennis. A favorable estimate against an exercise comparator is not automatically evidence of an advantage over another racket sport.
Taken together, the findings give table tennis a meaningful place in discussions of function after 60. The useful contribution is the pattern across measured outcomes, rather than a single number that readers might mistake for a personal forecast.
The studied population was adults aged 60 and older. That makes the review relevant to active-aging questions within that age group. It does not establish the same results for younger adults.
The distinction between age and recovery status is especially important for ReboundBody readers. A person recovering from an operation may fall within the review's age range, but age overlap alone does not make the research a study of that person's situation.
The review examined strength and balance, plus cognition, aerobic capacity and flexibility. It did not test recovery after orthopedic injury or surgery. Pain, tissue healing and postoperative progress were not its reported outcomes, nor was readiness to resume sport.
These are different research questions. A study of functional outcomes asks whether measured abilities differed after an intervention. A recovery study would need to address the particular recovery issue under consideration.
For an older adult, then, this review is evidence about possible activity-related functional benefits. It is not evidence that a particular stage of rehabilitation has ended or that returning to a racket sport is appropriate.
The practical value of the review is not a sport-selection rule. It is a clearer way to separate an activity goal from the evidence being used to support it.
“Getting back to tennis” names an activity. “Rebuilding strength” names a functional goal. “Improving balance” names another. Keeping those ideas separate can make a conversation with a qualified healthcare professional more focused.
For readers moving beyond formal rehabilitation, several questions follow naturally from the review:
These questions are a way to interpret evidence, not a return-to-play checklist. They help keep the purpose of an activity visible without turning a research summary into instructions.
ReboundBody's explanation of how rehabilitation progress is assessed offers related context for understanding the difference between a measured outcome and a broader recovery judgment. The point is not to add another test based on this review. It is to recognize which question each piece of information addresses.
Readers facing the transition out of supervised care may also find context in understanding the period after physical therapy. A review of sport interventions belongs within that larger discussion rather than replacing it.
The same distinction applies to longer-term goals. Returning to a familiar recreation and understanding function over the course of recovery are related concerns, but they are not identical. This review contributes information about function without deciding how either goal should be approached by an individual.
The certainty ratings place an important limit on the findings. Table-tennis estimates against non-exercise control for strength, balance and cognition were rated low certainty. Most other estimates were rated very low certainty.
The apparent cognitive difference between sports needs particular care. The review reported an estimate favoring table tennis over badminton, with a standardized mean difference of 0.83. That estimate was indirect and rated very low certainty. It also did not remain robust across all sensitivity analyses, which checked the result under different analysis choices.
The authors therefore concluded that the evidence was insufficient to determine whether any racket sport was superior. That conclusion does not mean the sports have equivalent effects. An unresolved comparison is different from a demonstrated tie.
Safety is another open question for the intended readership. The article page does not report adverse-event or injury outcomes. Favorable functional estimates therefore do not establish that these sports are safe or appropriate during recovery from an orthopedic injury or operation.
The review also provides no return-to-play criteria, injury-specific exercise prescriptions or rehabilitation progression. Personal decisions about resuming sport remain matters for the treating healthcare team.
The authors called for adequately powered randomized trials that directly compare racket sports. Such research could provide a firmer basis for understanding differences between activities. Until then, the evidence supports interest in racket sports without settling a hierarchy among them.
A familiar sport can carry personal meaning that no study ranking captures. For now, the research adds detail to the picture while leaving room for the individual recovery journey.
After weighing the racket-sport findings, the next question is the move from formal rehabilitation into normal activity, a transition ReboundBody explains through recovery-focused editorial content. For adults in midlife and later life, its evidence-aware explanations support a clearer understanding of that next stage without turning a sport comparison into a personal recovery plan.
Follow ReboundBody for practical articles on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength. New posts turn research into clear ideas for the road back to activity after injury or surgery.
Read practical guidance on injury recovery, rehabilitation, mobility and rebuilding strength as you work your way back to activity.
Explore Resources