SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effectiveness of haptic cues on gait in people with Parkinson's disease - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gait Posture · 2025-08-19

DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.08.069PMID: 40850056

Check source for accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundHaptic cueing to improve gait in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD) is an emerging treatment approach of interest. This systematic review [PROSPERO CRD42023483230] aimed to critically appraise the available literature on the effectiveness of haptic cues on gait in people with PD.MethodsArticles published from inception to May 2025 were searched in EMBASE, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials that investigated the effects of haptic cues on gait parameters (stride length, gait velocity, cadence) in people with PD were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias (ROB) using the Downs and Black tool.ResultsTwenty-nine studies, including 661 participants with PD, were included. Four studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with strong methodological quality, while the others were pre-post interventional studies. Three RCTs reported outcomes suitable for pooled analysis.ConclusionsResults indicate that haptic cueing improves gait (mainly velocity and stride length), with some improvements noted in additional spatiotemporal parameters and freezing of gait. Despite positive findings, evidence is limited and more robust RCTs are required to verify the efficacy of haptic cues, particularly for sustained effects on gait.

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.