SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A systematic review of the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in treating dysarthria in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Front Aging Neurosci · 2025-02-05

DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1501640PMID: 39980794

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

ObjectiveTo analyze the literature on the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating dysarthria in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and provide a reference for targeted clinical treatment of dysarthria in PD patients.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in English and Chinese databases, including Embase, Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and VIP Database, for relevant literature on rTMS treatment for dysarthria in PD patients. The search timeframe was from the inception of each database to October 2023. Literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two researchers extracted information on study subjects, age, intervention methods, intervention duration, intervention frequency, evaluation indicators, and intervention results from the included literature. The modified Jadad scale was used to evaluate the quality of the literature.ResultsA total of seven studies were included, mainly focusing on the frequency, duration, and stimulation site of rTMS for dysarthria in PD patients. Six studies indicated that rTMS treatment improved dysarthria in PD patients.ConclusionRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has a positive effect on improving dysarthria in PD patients, but further research is needed to determine its efficacy.

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.