MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407312489 · doi:10.14740/jnr874

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Motor Therapy for Patients With Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4407312489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lucas Brito Meira, Andrey Teixeira Ferreira, João Vítor Andrade Fernandes, André de Sá Braga Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineParkinson's diseaseTranscranial direct-current stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationStimulationCurrent (fluid)NeuroscienceDiseaseInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that leads to motor and non-motor impairments, including tremors, bradykinesia, and rigidity. Current treatments, such as pharmacological therapies and deep brain stimulation, have efficacy and side effects limitations. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive technique that may offer a complementary approach to managing PD motor symptoms. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of tDCS in improving motor outcomes in PD patients. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered on the PROSPERO platform (CRD4202457096). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed tDCS in PD patients with a control group. Studies were identified through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library searches up to January 2025. Data on participant demographics, interventions, outcomes, and results were extracted and analyzed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Five studies involving 176 participants (mean age 67.13 years) were included. Results indicated that tDCS improved motor outcomes, including gait, posture, and balance. Notably, it demonstrated enhanced dual-task gait speed and improvements in gait cadence. Also, it was reported that there were reductions in freezing of gait severity, while improvements in trunk stability and postural control. Despite promising findings, heterogeneity across studies was observed, particularly regarding stimulation parameters and outcome measures. This review provides evidence that tDCS can improve motor symptoms in PD, particularly gait and posture. However, variability in stimulation protocols and small sample sizes limit generalizability. Larger, standardized trials are needed to confirm tDCS’s efficacy, optimize treatment parameters, and assess long-term effects. tDCS shows potential as an adjunctive therapy for managing motor symptoms in PD patients.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Research→Same topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies→French-language works237,207→