ReviewFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Mapping motor exercise interventions in Parkinson's disease: a scoping review of intervention types, outcomes, adherence, and dropout.
Review in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the current evidence on exercise interventions for people with Parkinson's disease (PD), describing the most frequently investigated intervention types and synthesizing the evidence on motor and non-motor outcomes, as well as adherence and dropout patterns. Methods: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and used an umbrella evidence-mapping approach. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus was performed for studies published between January 2010 and February 2026. Eligible sources included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and a limited number of primary studies to complement areas where synthesized evidence was limited. Two independent reviewers screened the studies and extracted data on intervention character-istics, exercise dose (FITT parameters), motor and non-motor outcomes, adherence, and dropout. Results: Twenty-six studies met the eligibility criteria. Considerable heterogeneity was observed across intervention characteristics, exercise dose, and outcome measures. Overall, different exercise modalities were associated with improvements in specific motor and non-motor outcomes, although the evidence varied among the included evidence syntheses. Adherence was generally higher in supervised and socially engaging interventions, whereas dropout was mainly associated with disease-related, logistical, technological, and psychosocial factors. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that different exercise modalities may provide complementary benefits on motor and non-motor outcomes, supporting individualized exercise prescription according to patients' clinical characteristics, rehabilitation goals, disease stage, and feasibility. Future research should prioritize greater standardization of exercise protocols and more consistent reporting of exercise dose, adherence, and dropout to facilitate comparisons across studies and strengthen the evidence base.
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.