ArticleFrontiers in neurology2026
Adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions for motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD), particularly gait, balance, freezing, and axial impairment, can remain troublesome despite optimized dopaminergic treatment. The literature on non-pharmacological adjuncts is diverse, and the label "complementary and alternative therapy" is used inconsistently across conventional rehabilitation, mind-body practices, acupuncture, cueing, and neuromodulation. Objective: To map randomized evidence on adjunctive non-pharmacological interventions for PD motor symptoms, while distinguishing complementary/integrative practices from conventional rehabilitation and other adjunctive technologies. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-ScR-guided scoping review of PubMed and Web of Science from 1 January 2015 to 7 September 2025. English- or Chinese-language randomized controlled, randomized crossover, pilot, or feasibility trials were eligible when at least one prespecified motor or motor-function outcome was reported. Published reports and independent trials were counted separately. Non-motor outcomes were not synthesized unless they were ancillary to an otherwise eligible motor-focused trial. Results: After a study-level and report-level audit, 50 eligible reports representing 48 independent randomized trials were retained. Seven reports evaluated rehabilitation or technology-assisted training, 15 mind-body or exercise-based approaches, eight acupuncture-related or manual approaches, and 20 neuromodulation, cueing, biofeedback, or other physical interventions. Study size, intervention dose, comparator choice, motor phenotype, outcome selection, follow-up, and safety reporting varied substantially. Two pairs of publications were identified as reports from the same trial families. Conclusion: The randomized literature is broad but methodologically heterogeneous. This scoping review maps where motor outcomes have been studied; it does not establish comparative efficacy or justify treatment recommendations. Future trials and evidence syntheses should distinguish intervention classes more precisely, link multiple reports from the same trial, prespecify motor phenotypes and core outcomes, and report adverse events and adherence consistently. Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/tu5nd/, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UKH9G.
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.