Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThis study used network Meta-analysis to compare the effects of different transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) modalities on the effectiveness and long-term validity of improving cognitive function in Parkinson's patients.MethodsComputer searches of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embass, CNKI and Wanfang Data were conducted to collect randomized controlled clinical studies on TMS to improve cognitive function in Parkinson's patients published from the time of library construction to December 2023.ResultsA total of 22 studies and 1,473 patients were included, comprising 5 interventions: high frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS), low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS), intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS), sham stimulation and conventional rehabilitation therapy (CRT). Network Meta-analysis showed that the ranking results of different TMS intervention modalities in terms of MoCA scores were: HF-rTMS > LF-rTMS > iTBS > sham > CRT, the ranking results of different TMS intervention modalities in terms of MMSE scores were: HF-rTMS > LF-rTMS > sham > CRT. The effect of TMS on improving Parkinsonian cognitive function lasted for 1 month compared to the no-stimulation group.ConclusionTMS has some long-term sustained effects on improving cognitive function in Parkinson's patients. HF-rTMS is more effective in improving cognitive function in Parkinson's patients.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42023463958.
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.