4.5 Review

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for motor recovery in Parkinson's disease: A Meta-analysis

Journal

BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 8, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1132

Keywords

meta-analysis; motor function; Parkinson's disease; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Therapeutic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on motor recovery of Parkinson's disease (PD) have been reported; however, the protocols of these studies varied greatly. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the optimal rTMS parameters for motor recovery of PD. Methods Results Electronic databases were searched for studies investigating the therapeutic effects of rTMS on motor function in patients with PD. The section III of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) was extracted as the primary outcome, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Twenty-three studies with a total of 646 participants were included. The pooled estimates of rTMS revealed significant short-term (SMD, 0.37; p < 0.00001) and long-term (SMD, 0.39; p = 0.005) effects on motor function improvement of PD. Subgroup analysis observed that high-frequency rTMS (HF-rTMS) was significant in improving motor function (SMD, 0.48; p < 0.00001), but low-frequency rTMS (LF-rTMS) was not. In particular, when HF-rTMS targeted over the primary motor cortex (M1), in which the bilateral M1 revealed a larger effect size than unilateral M1. Compared to single-session, multi-session of HF-rTMS over the M1 showed significant effect size. In addition, HF-rTMS over the M1 with a total of 18,000-20,000 stimulation pulses yielded more significant effects (SMD, 0.97; p = 0.01) than other dosages. Conclusions In conclusion, multi-session of HF-rTMS over the M1 (especially bilateral M1) with a total of 18,000-20,000 pulses appears to be the optimal parameters for motor improvement of PD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available