SynthesisFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Efficacy of repeated external cueing training on freezing of gait and gait performance in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Freezing of gait (FOG) is a disabling gait disturbance in Parkinson's disease (PD) that responds poorly to pharmacological treatment. External cueing has been proposed as a non-pharmacological strategy to improve gait and mobility; however, the effectiveness of repeated external cueing training on FOG-related outcomes remains uncertain, particularly across different cueing modalities. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a specific focus on repeated external cueing interventions (≥2 weeks). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched from inception to November 10, 2025. RCTs evaluating external cueing interventions in individuals with PD were included. Primary outcomes were FOG severity assessed by the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (FOGQ) or New FOGQ (NFOGQ). Secondary outcomes included Timed Up and Go (TUG), MDS-UPDRS part III, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0, and evidence certainty using GRADE. Results: Nine RCTs involving patients with PD were included. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant reduction in FOG severity following external cueing interventions compared with control conditions (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.09), with substantial heterogeneity. In contrast, external cueing significantly improved functional mobility as measured by the TUG test (SMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.15 to -0.15), although heterogeneity remained high. No consistent benefits were observed for overall motor symptoms or balance outcomes. Exploratory analysis incorporating short-term follow-up data suggested a modest improvement in FOG severity; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution due to persistent heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was rated as low according to the GRADE framework. The observed heterogeneity was likely attributable to variations in intervention protocols, cueing modalities, and outcome assessment methods. Conclusion: External cueing interventions may improve functional mobility in individuals with PD, particularly for tasks involving gait initiation and turning. However, current evidence does not support consistent benefits for FOG severity, overall motor symptoms, or balance. Given the low certainty of evidence, further high-quality, multicenter RCTs with standardized outcome measures and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the clinical role of cueing-based interventions in FOG. These findings highlight important limitations in the current evidence base and provide directions for future research. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261280910, identifier CRD420261280910.
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.