Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundFreezing of gait is among the most disabling motor complications of Parkinson's disease, markedly increasing fall risk and reducing quality of life. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has emerged as a non-invasive neuromodulation approach; however, evidence regarding its efficacy for freezing of gait remains heterogeneous and inconclusive.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for freezing of gait and motor outcomes in Parkinson's disease.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420261285716). PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched through January 2026 for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was freezing of gait severity measured by the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire. Pooled standardized mean differences were calculated using random-effects modeling.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials comprising 293 participants were included. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation significantly improved freezing of gait severity as measured by the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (standardized mean difference = -0.97, 95% confidence interval - 1.39 to -0.55; p ConclusionsRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation significantly improves freezing of gait and motor performance in Parkinson's disease, representing a safe and promising adjunctive therapy for gait disturbances refractory to conventional treatment. Future large-scale trials with standardized protocols are needed to confirm long-term efficacy.
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.