SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effects of Exercise on Parkinson's Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Brain Imaging Studies.

Front Hum Neurosci · 2022-02-16

DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.796712PMID: 35250515

Open accessSystematic Review; systematic-review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundExercise is increasingly recognized as a key component of Parkinson's disease (PD) treatment strategies, but the underlying mechanism of how exercise affects PD is not yet fully understood.ObjectiveThe activation likelihood estimation (ALE) method is used to study the mechanism of exercise affecting PD, providing a theoretical basis for studying exercise and PD, and promoting the health of patients with PD.MethodsRelevant keywords were searched on the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Seven articles were finally included according to the screening criteria, with a total sample size of 97 individuals. Using the GingerALE 3.0.2 software, an ALE meta-analysis was performed using seven studies that met the requirements, and the probability of the cross-experiment activation of each voxel was calculated.ResultsThe meta-analysis produced seven clusters, and major activations were found in the cerebellum, occipital lobe, parietal lobe, and frontal lobe brain regions.ConclusionExercise for PD mainly results in the enhanced activation of the cerebellum, occipital lobe, parietal lobe, and frontal lobe. Exercise for PD does not cause a change in the activation of a single brain area, and the observed improvement may result from coordinated changes in multiple brain areas.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.