SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Creative thinking in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Neurol Sci · 2026-07-16

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-026-09234-7PMID: 42458130

Open accessMeta-Analysis; Systematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionCreativity in Parkinson's disease (PD) has aroused research interest due to its neurological underpinnings, which involve brain regions crucial for creative and divergent thinking (a core-process of creative thinking), and because of some patients who displayed an increased artistic drive following dopaminergic treatment. From a cognitive point of view, creative thinking underlies several cognitive abilities, such as executive functions and memory. Therefore, a better understanding of whether it is increased (or, at least, preserved) in PD patients can provide useful insights for sustaining cognitive functioning. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether PD patients regularly assuming dopaminergic medications present higher divergent thinking skills than healthy controls.MethodsA meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines to provide a statistical synthesis of the studies. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS -2 tool.ResultsTen studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated the absence of significant differences between PD patients and healthy controls in tasks assessing divergent thinking (Cohen's d = -0,095 (95% CI: -0,308, 0,118)).ConclusionsSuch findings support the notion that divergent thinking can be spared by the disease, maybe constituting a possible resource for patients' cognitive functioning, as it involves those cognitive abilities that can compensate impairments in PD. Clinical implications and guidance to further studies and interventions to support PD patients' cognition were discussed.

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.