ReviewPloS one2025
Unveiling the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson's disease: A comprehensive review of systematic analyses.
Review in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease: Therapeutic Applications and Clinical Perspectives.Journal of movement disorders · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionsHere 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.
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.