ReviewCureus2025
Qualitative Assessment of Network Meta-Analyses of Exercise Therapy for Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) regarding exercise therapy for Parkinson's disease (PD) has increased rapidly. However, using their findings to inform clinical practice requires confidence in their methodological rigor. This scoping review systematically evaluated the methodological quality and reporting standards of recent NMAs in this field. Comprehensive research was conducted across PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and other databases through August 31, 2025. Eligible NMAs comparing exercise interventions for PD were assessed using AMSTAR 2 for methodological rigor and PRISMA-NMA for reporting completeness. Twenty-two NMAs were included. While the majority originated from China (68.2%), a sensitivity analysis revealed no systematic methodological differences between Chinese and non-Chinese reviews. Overall methodological confidence was critically low; no NMA achieved a "High" AMSTAR 2 rating, and only three (13.6%) were rated as "Moderate." Fundamental deficits were prevalent in comprehensive literature searching (Item 4) and the justification for excluded studies (Item 7), with adherence rates of only 9.1% and 4.5%, respectively. Financial transparency was also negligible (<10%). Conversely, adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting standards was generally satisfactory (>95% for network-specific items), highlighting a discrepancy between reporting compliance and actual study conduct. Current NMAs on exercise for PD exhibit a significant gap between their clinical recommendations and the robustness of the supporting evidence. The widespread lack of comprehensive searching and financial transparency undermines the reliability of these reviews. Future research must prioritize strict adherence to methodological standards over simply completing reporting checklists to provide trustworthy evidence for clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.