NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of wearable devices on gait, balance, and motor function in people with Parkinson's Disease (PwPD) through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across international and Chinese databases to identify relevant studies published from database inception through December 2025. Data were independently screened, extracted, and analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 16. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the FITT principle, including intervention duration, weekly frequency, feedback modality, and device category.ResultsA total of 13 RCTs comprising 380 participants were included. The meta-analysis revealed that wearable devices were associated with selective improvements in certain gait and motor outcomes among PwPD. Specifically, improvements were observed in several key measures, including walking speed [MD = 0.07, 95% CI (0.01, 0.12), p = 0.02], TUGT [MD = -2.00, 95% CI (-3.57, -0.43), p = 0.01], and UPDRS-III [SMD = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.59, -0.06), p = 0.02]. No significant improvements were observed for stride length, step length, step cadence, FOGQ, BBS, Mini-BESTest, DS time, 6MWT, or PDQ scores. Subgroup analyses suggested that interventions lasting 7-12 weeks and those performed 3-5 times per week may be associated with improvements in walking speed in PwPD, while no significant effects were observed for shorter duration or other frequency categories. Subgroup analyses by device category and feedback modality did not show statistically significant differences in walking speed.ConclusionThese findings suggest that wearable devices may selectively improve gait (walking speed), dynamic balance (TUGT), and motor function (UPDRS-III) in PwPD, but evidence for and quality of life remains limited. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols are warranted to confirm these findings and guide clinical implementation.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251246681, identifier, CRD420251246681.
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.