SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation improves motor function in Parkinson's disease.

Ann Clin Transl Neurol · 2024-09-05

DOI: 10.1002/acn3.52183PMID: 39238196

Open accessresearch-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectiveTo determine whether an accelerated protocol of 48 Hz cerebellar repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation results in improved motor function in individuals with Parkinson's disease.MethodsIn this double-blind randomized sham-controlled study, 35 individuals with Parkinson's disease and stable medical treatment were randomized to either sham or verum transcranial magnetic stimulation. The stimulation was applied bilaterally and medial over the cerebellum and comprised a novel accelerated protocol encompassing two sessions per day on 5 consecutive days. Patients were assessed at baseline, on day 5 after the last stimulation and 1 month post intervention. Measurements included dynamic posturography, UPDRS III, 8-Meter walk test, and Timed Up and Go test.ResultsThe accelerated protocol was safe and feasible in an outpatient setting. Patients in the verum group showed significant improvement (p InterpretationThe effect of a high-dose transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with Parkinson's disease is encouraging and comparable to other studies using much longer stimulation protocols. This short-term intervention of 5 days facilitates the future application in an outpatient setting. Reduction in hospitalization rates directly benefits patients with motor impairment.

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.