AI Article Synopsis

  • The study reviewed systematic reviews (SRs) on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for Parkinson’s disease (PD) to clarify the evidence quality.
  • Only 12.5% of the 16 SRs were rated as high quality, with many suffering from low or very low quality ratings according to rigorous evaluation tools.
  • While rTMS was found to potentially improve motor symptoms in PD, its efficacy for non-motor symptoms remains unclear, indicating a need for future studies to enhance methodological standards and treatment comparisons.

Article Abstract

Background: Many systematic reviews (SRs) have reported the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for Parkinson' s disease (PD), but the quality of the evidence is unclear. The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence provided by SRs on the effect of rTMS on PD.

Methods: A comprehensive search for SRs published from the establishment of the library to March 1, 2024, was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang databases. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias for Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool were used to evaluate the methodology quality, risk of bias and evidence quality of SRs, respectively.

Results: We identified 16 SRs. According to the results of the AMSTAR-2, 12.5% (2/16) of the SRs rated as high quality, 43.75% (7/16) rated as low quality, and 43.75% (7/16) rated as very low quality. Based on the ROBIS tool, 6 (37.5%) SRs had low risk of bias. The GRADE results suggested that 16.13% (10/62) of the evidence was of moderate quality, 33.87% (21/62) of the evidence was of low quality and 50% (31/62) of the evidence was of very low quality. Moderate-quality results show that rTMS can improve PD motor symptoms.

Conclusions: Here we show that rTMS can improve the motor symptoms of PD, but its effectiveness in treating non-motor symptoms of PD is inconsistent. Due to the methodological limitations and diversity in study designs, future studies should focus on addressing these issues by providing thorough methodological details, standardizing rTMS protocols, evaluating side effects, and comparing with other treatments.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11703078PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0313420PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

low quality
16
systematic reviews
12
risk bias
12
quality
9
repetitive transcranial
8
transcranial magnetic
8
magnetic stimulation
8
quality 4375%
8
4375% 7/16
8
7/16 rated
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!