Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
The number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) regarding exercise therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD) has increased rapidly. However, using their findings to inform clinical practice requires confidence in their methodological rigor. This scoping review systematically evaluated the methodological quality and reporting standards of recent NMAs in this field. Comprehensive research was conducted across PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and other databases through August 31, 2025. Eligible NMAs comparing exercise interventions for PD were assessed using AMSTAR 2 for methodological rigor and PRISMA-NMA for reporting completeness. Twenty-two NMAs were included. While the majority originated from China (68.2%), a sensitivity analysis revealed no systematic methodological differences between Chinese and non-Chinese reviews. Overall methodological confidence was critically low; no NMA achieved a "High" AMSTAR 2 rating, and only three (13.6%) were rated as "Moderate." Fundamental deficits were prevalent in comprehensive literature searching (Item 4) and the justification for excluded studies (Item 7), with adherence rates of only 9.1% and 4.5%, respectively. Financial transparency was also negligible (95% for network-specific items), highlighting a discrepancy between reporting compliance and actual study conduct. Current NMAs on exercise for PD exhibit a significant gap between their clinical recommendations and the robustness of the supporting evidence. The widespread lack of comprehensive searching and financial transparency undermines the reliability of these reviews. Future research must prioritize strict adherence to methodological standards over simply completing reporting checklists to provide trustworthy evidence for clinical decision-making.
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.