Mind–Body Exercises for Non-motor Symptoms of Patients With Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of mind–body exercise on global cognitive function, depression, sleep disorders, fatigue level, and quality of life (QOL) in a Parkinson’s disease (PD) population. Methods: Total six English and Chinese databases were searched for articles published up to May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating mind–body excises on non-motor symptoms of PD were included. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality, and we defined high-quality studies as having a low risk of bias in four or more domains. Global cognitive function was considered the primary outcome and was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The secondary outcomes included QOL, fatigue, depression, and sleep quality, which were measured using the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), 16-item Parkinson’s Disease Fatigue Scale (PFS-16), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and revised Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS-2), respectively. Subgroup analyses were conducted for global cognitive function and QOL to assess the optimal treatment measure across the various mind–body exercises. Results: Fourteen RCTs with 404 patients were finally included in the meta-analysis. Eight (57.14%) studies were of high quality. The pooled results showed that mind–body exercises generally had a significant advantage over the control intervention in improving global cognitive function (MD = 1.68; P = 0.0008). The dose subgroup analysis revealed that the low dose (60–120 min per week) and moderate dose (120–200 min per week) significantly increased MoCA scores compared with the control group (MD = 2.11, P = 0.01; MD = 1.27, P = 0.02, respectively). The duration subgroup analysis indicated a significant difference in the effect of the duration (6–10 and >15 weeks) on increasing MoCA scores compared with the control group (MD = 3.74, P < 0.00001; MD = 1.45, P = 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Mind–body exercise may improve global cognitive function, sleep quality, and QOL in the PD population. In addition, low to moderate doses and appropriate durations significantly improved global cognitive function. Clinical Trial Registration: [ www.ClinicalTrials.gov ], identifier [CRD42021275522].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".