Effects of dual-task training on health-related quality of life and cognitive function in people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic revi

Research overview

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

IntroductionDual-task training is proposed as a rehabilitative strategy to mitigate motor and cognitive impairments in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to consolidate existing information regarding the impact of dual-task therapies on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cognitive performance in middle-aged and older persons diagnosed with PD.MethodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published to May 2026 was performed utilizing PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Web of Science. The chosen studies adhered to the PICOS framework. The Methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and GRADE framework, respectively. The review protocol is recorded in PROSPERO under the number CRD420251159680.ResultsOut of 3,037 identified records, 10 RCTs met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review, of which 9 contributed data to the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant but modest effect on HRQoL measured with the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p = 0.03). No significant between-group effects were observed for TMT-A (MD = 0.99; 95% CI: -3.38 to 5.37; p = 0.66), TMT-B (SMD = 0.02; 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.29; p = 0.86), or MoCA (SMD = 0.19; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.64; p = 0.41).ConclusionDual-task interventions may produce a modest improvement in HRQoL in people with Parkinson's disease, whereas the current evidence does not demonstrate significant benefits for the cognitive outcomes assessed. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of studies, methodological limitations, and clinical heterogeneity across interventions.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251159680, identifier CRD420251159680.

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.