Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Background/objectiveThe efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on Parkinson's disease (PD) varies across the stimulation targets. This study aims to estimate the effect of different TMS targets on motor symptoms in PD.MethodsA Bayesian hierarchical model was built to assess the effects across different TMS targets, and the rank probabilities and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine the ranks of each target. The primary outcome was the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part-III. Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was assessed using the node-splitting method.ResultsThirty-six trials with 1,122 subjects were included for analysis. The pair-wise meta-analysis results showed that TMS could significantly improve motor symptoms in PD patients. Network meta-analysis results showed that the high-frequency stimulation over bilateral M1, bilateral DLPFC, and M1+DLPFC could significantly reduce the UPDRS-III scores compared with sham conditions. The high-frequency stimulation over both M1 and DLPFC had a more significant effect when compared with other parameters, and ranked first with the highest SCURA value. There was no significant inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons.ConclusionConsidering all settings reported in our research, high-frequency stimulation over bilateral M1 or bilateral DLPFC has a moderate beneficial effect on the improvement of motor symptoms in PD (high confidence rating). High-frequency stimulation over M1+DLPFC has a prominent beneficial effect and appears to be the most effective TMS parameter setting for ameliorating motor symptoms of PD patients (high confidence rating).
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.