21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that positively regulates the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although, most reviews and meta-analysis have shown that rTMS intervention is effective in treating motor symptoms and depression, very few have used randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to analyse the efficacy of this intervention in PD. We aimed to review RCTs of rTMS in patients with PD to assess the efficacy of rTMS on motor and non-motor function in patients with PD.

          Methods

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases for RCTs on rTMS in PD published between January 1, 1988 to January 1, 2022. Eligible studies included sham-controlled RCTs that used rTMS stimulation for motor or non-motor symptoms in PD. RCTs not focusing on the efficacy of rTMS in PD were excluded. Summary data were extracting from those RCTs by two investigators independently. We then calculated standardised mean difference with random-effect models. The main outcome included motor and non-motor examination of scales that were used in PD motor or non-motor assessment. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022329633.

          Findings

          Fourteen studies with 469 patients met the criteria for our meta-analysis. Twelve eligible studies with 381 patients were pooled to analyse the efficacy of rTMS on motor function improvement. The effect size on motor scale scores was 0.51 ( P < 0.0001) and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I 2 = 29%). Five eligible studies with 202 patients were collected to evaluate antidepressant-like effects. The effect size on depression scale scores was 0.42 ( P = 0.004), and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I 2 = 25%), indicating a significant anti-depressive effect (P = 0.004). The results suggest that high-frequency of rTMS on primary motor cortex (M1) is effective in improving motor symptoms; while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may be a potentially effective area in alleviating depressive symptom.

          Interpretation

          The findings suggest that rTMS could be used as a possible adjuvant therapy for PD mainly to improve motor symptoms, but could have potential efficacy on depressive symptoms of PD. However, further investigation is needed.

          Funding

          The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO: 81873777, 82071414), Initiated Foundation of Zhujiang Hospital (NO: 02020318005), Scientific Research Foundation of Guangzhou (NO: 202206010005), and Science and Technology Program of Guangdong of China (NO: 2020A0505100037).

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

              There are two popular statistical models for meta-analysis, the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model. The fact that these two models employ similar sets of formulas to compute statistics, and sometimes yield similar estimates for the various parameters, may lead people to believe that the models are interchangeable. In fact, though, the models represent fundamentally different assumptions about the data. The selection of the appropriate model is important to ensure that the various statistics are estimated correctly. Additionally, and more fundamentally, the model serves to place the analysis in context. It provides a framework for the goals of the analysis as well as for the interpretation of the statistics. In this paper we explain the key assumptions of each model, and then outline the differences between the models. We conclude with a discussion of factors to consider when choosing between the two models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                29 July 2022
                October 2022
                29 July 2022
                : 52
                : 101589
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Neurology, Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510282, PR China
                [b ]Department of Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, PR China
                [c ]Department of Neurology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Centre El Paso, El Paso, TX 79905, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Neurology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Gongye Road 253, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510282, PR China. wqdennis@ 123456hotmail.com denniswq@ 123456yahoo.com
                [1]

                These authors contributed equally.

                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00319-4 101589
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101589
                9340539
                35923424
                e6c9f656-4747-4873-b22d-e7c7b386c4eb
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 15 May 2022
                : 9 July 2022
                : 12 July 2022
                Categories
                Articles

                repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation,parkinson disease,motor function,cognition,depression

                Comments

                Comment on this article