Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35462692›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in aging neuroscience2022

Therapeutic Devices for Motor Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease: Current Progress and a Systematic Review of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials.

Joji Fujikawa, Ryoma Morigaki, Nobuaki Yamamoto, Teruo Oda, Hiroshi Nakanishi, Yuishin Izumi, Yasushi Takagi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of Cueing Training on Gait Variability.International journal of exercise science · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Treatment of Parkinson's disease by deep brain stimulation: a bibliometric analysis.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joji FujikawaDepartment of Advanced Brain Research, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Ryoma MorigakiDepartment of Advanced Brain Research, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Nobuaki YamamotoDepartment of Advanced Brain Research, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Teruo OdaDepartment of Advanced Brain Research, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Hiroshi NakanishiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Yuishin IzumiDepartment of Neurology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Yasushi TakagiDepartment of Advanced Brain Research, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokushima University, Tokushima, Japan.
Tokushima University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pharmacotherapy is the first-line treatment option for Parkinson's disease, and levodopa is considered the most effective drug for managing motor symptoms. However, side effects such as motor fluctuation and dyskinesia have been associated with levodopa treatment. For these conditions, alternative therapies, including invasive and non-invasive medical devices, may be helpful. This review sheds light on current progress in the development of devices to alleviate motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Methods: We first conducted a narrative literature review to obtain an overview of current invasive and non-invasive medical devices and thereafter performed a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these devices. Results: Our review revealed different characteristics of each device and their effectiveness for motor symptoms. Although invasive medical devices are usually highly effective, surgical procedures can be burdensome for patients and have serious side effects. In contrast, non-pharmacological/non-surgical devices have fewer complications. RCTs of non-invasive devices, especially non-invasive brain stimulation and mechanical peripheral stimulation devices, have proven effectiveness on motor symptoms. Nearly no non-invasive devices have yet received Food and Drug Administration certification or a CE mark. Conclusion: Invasive and non-invasive medical devices have unique characteristics, and several RCTs have been conducted for each device. Invasive devices are more effective, while non-invasive devices are less effective and have lower hurdles and risks. It is important to understand the characteristics of each device and capitalize on these.

Indexed as

freezing of gait (FOG)gaitinvasive medical devicesnon-invasive medical deviceParkinson’s diseasestimulationtremor

Identifiers

PMID35462692
PMCPMC9020378
OpenAlexW4220692334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.