SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The effectiveness of art therapy on motor function in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Front Psychol · 2025-09-04

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1542405PMID: 40978260

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

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of art therapy interventions in improving motor function performance in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD), with a focus on identifying the most effective modalities.MethodRandomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Twenty-six studies were included, assessed for quality, and analyzed following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42024611770). Subgroup analyses were performed for primary outcomes (UPDRS, TUG, Mini-BESTest), while secondary outcomes (Stride Length, FOG, 6MWT, and Gait Speed) were evaluated using forest and funnel plots to estimate pooled effects.ResultsArt therapy significantly improved motor function, as evidenced by reductions in UPDRS III scores (SMD = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.26], p p p p p p p p p p ConclusionThis study underscores the clinical significance of art therapy in improving motor functions in PD patients. Among the interventions, dance therapy exhibited the most pronounced effects, highlighting its potential as a pivotal component in multidisciplinary neurorehabilitation programs.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024611770, identifier (CRD42024611770).

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.