MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297237865 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2021.770920

Mind–Body Exercises for Non-motor Symptoms of Patients With Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W4297237865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Wang, Kunbin Li, Peiming Zhang, Shuqi Ge, Xiaopeng Wen, Zhiyuan Wu, Xianli Yao, Bing Jiao, Pingge Sun, Peipei Lv, Liming Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMeta-analysisBeck Depression InventoryPittsburgh Sleep Quality IndexMedicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialCognitionSubgroup analysisDepression (economics)PopulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryInternal medicineCognitive impairmentSleep qualityAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Aging NeuroscienceSame topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207