NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a potential noninvasive treatment option for managing motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). While numerous randomized controlled trials have evaluated its efficacy, the evidence remains inconsistent. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aims to consolidate the available data to assess the effectiveness of rTMS in improving motor symptoms, cognitive function, and quality of life in patients with PD.MethodA comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, from their inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rTMS with sham stimulation or other controls in patients with PD were included. The primary outcome was improved motor symptoms, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III or MD-UPDRS-III. Data were pooled using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I 2 statistic.ResultsA total of 20 RCTs, including 693 participants, met the inclusion criteria. rTMS was associated with significant improvements in UPDRS-III (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.53 [0.31, 0.74], I 2 = 28%, P I 2 = 0%, P = 0.0005) scores. Cognitive function, assessed by Mini-Mental State Exam, showed no significant improvement. Beck Depression Inventory (SMD 0.36 [0.12, 0.61], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.003) showed significant improvement. However, both HDRS (SMD 0.16 [-0.16, 0.47], I 2 = 0%, P = 0.33) and MADRS (SMD 0.55 [-0.31, 1.41], I 2 = 63%, P = 0.21).ConclusionThis updated meta-analysis provides evidence that rTMS is a safe and effective intervention for improving motor symptoms and cognitive function in PD patients. However, its effects on mood and long-term outcomes require further investigation.
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.