SynthesisRevista de neurologia2024
[Effects on cognitive processes of dual-task training in people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review].
Synthesis in Revista de neurologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDual-tasking is a non-pharmacological intervention in people with neurodegenerative conditions, and is used in Parkinson's disease (PD), primarily to enhance motor performance. The aim of this review is to compile the current evidence on how dual-task training affects cognitive processes in people with PD. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review was undertaken, applying PRISMA guidelines, which included articles obtained from the PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct and Springer Link databases. Methodological quality was assessed using PEDro and ROBINS-I.
resultsTwelve articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria: nine of them were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining three were non-randomized studies. Improvements in attention and executive functions were identified, although the diversity of approaches and duration means that reaching definitive conclusions is difficult.
conclusionsIncreased research and standardized intervention programmes are essential. Longitudinal and randomized controlled studies in representative samples which provide conclusions that are applicable to other contexts are also important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.