THE INTERSECTION OF BRAIN SCIENCE & HUMAN POTENTIALPartner with us
neurofeedback.com
The newsletter
← Research & Evidence
Positive with limitationsSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Noninvasive brain stimulation for motor function and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

First published online October 15, 2026. Selected stimulation approaches ranked well for motor scores, but the highest-ranked quality-of-life approaches did not significantly outperform sham.

Hu S, Liu J, Wang F, Wang G, Zhi Y, Gao X, Kim D.
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience · Publication date: 2026-10-15
Added to site: 2026-10-16
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2026.112347

First published online October 15, 2026; the Crossref issue date is January 2027.

Modalities
TMS, tDCS
Clinical focus
Parkinson's disease, Motor function, Quality of life
Population
People with Parkinson's disease
Sample
45 randomized trials, 2,354 participants and 17 noninvasive brain-stimulation interventions
Intervention / method
Network comparison of rTMS, theta-burst and tDCS target and frequency configurations for short- and long-term motor and quality-of-life outcomes.
Comparator
Sham stimulation and indirect network comparisons among 17 intervention configurations

Clinician summary

cTBS over SMA was top-ranked for short-term UPDRS-III and differed from sham by -9.80 points (95% CI -17.55 to -2.05). HF-rTMS over M1 plus SMA ranked highest long term at -10.05 points (95% CI -18.67 to -1.42). Top PDQ-39 comparisons were not significant.

How to interpret the findings

Network rankings do not prove superiority for an individual patient. Heterogeneity, trial quality, protocol variation and safety details could not be fully verified from the abstract, and quality-of-life findings were null.

Equipment and disclosures

Multiple stimulation approaches and devices were pooled; manufacturers were not verified in the abstract. No BrainMaster attribution.

Funding and conflicts were not available in the checked abstract. No correction, retraction or concern relation appeared in the Crossref record; this is a bounded check. AI-assisted review.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.

Abstract checked · Checked 2026-10-16

Summary prepared with AI assistance. Source verification does not imply an independent replication or a clinician's endorsement. Read our review method.