NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Background eHealth is emerging as a promising intervention for Parkinson's disease (PD) , yet there is currently no consensus on their impact on improving clinical management or on the most effective electronic health technology. Thus, we will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the most effective of various eHealth interventions in PD. Methods We will execute an expansive search across multiple databases, involving Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, Scoups, Web of Science and Embase. This study will center on eHealth interventions related to PD and we will identify randomized controlled trials published in the English language that from the inception of these databases until 16 March 2025. Following initial title and abstract screening, key study elements including participates, interventions and outcomes will be gingerly extracted using eligible criteria. Then, quality of the literature will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Direct comparisons between interventions will be analyzed through pairwise meta-analysis in STATA, with subsequent network meta-analysis employing this platform to establish symptom alleviation efficacy hierarchies among eHealth methods. Discussion This study will address a critical gap in Parkinson’s disease (PD) management by comprehensively evaluating the comparative effectiveness of eHealth interventions for delivering cognitive and motor function therapies, thereby advancing evidence-based strategies to optimize remote care for patients with this neurodegenerative condition. Systematic review registration The protocol of this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD420250655984. Available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced.
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.