Table 3.
Meta-analysis results
| Outcome measures | Study (Patient) | SMD/MD (95%CI) | P-value of the intervention effect | Heterogeneity | Publication bias | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive function | MOCA | 3(n = 175) | 2.98,(2.08;3.88) | P = 0.000 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.87 | |
| Depressive symptoms | HAMD | 4(n = 186) | -0.43,(-0.72;-0.13) | P = 0.004 | I2 = 43%%, P = 0.14 | |
| Intervention Frequency | ||||||
| ≥ 5 Hz | 2(n = 114) | -0.19,(-0.73; 0.35) | P = 0.50 | I2 = 51%, P = 0.13 | ||
| ≤ 1 Hz | 2(n = 72) | -0.88,(-1.37; -0.39) | P = 0.0005 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.42 | ||
| Stimulation Site | P = 0.361 | |||||
| DLPFC | 2(n = 60) | -0.23,(-0.76;0.30) | P = 0.39 | I2 = 82%, P = 0.02 | ||
| M1 | 2(n = 126) | -0.52,(-0.88;-0.16) | P = 0.004 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.74 | ||
| Walk ability | FOG-Q | 3(n = 90) | -0.54,(-0.97;-0.11) | P = 0.01 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.01; | |
| TUGT | 5(n = 178) | -0.72,(-1.43; 0.00) | P = 0.048 | I2 = 81%, P = 0.000 | Egger’s test, P = 0.243 | |
| Stimulation Site | ||||||
| M1 | 3(n = 83) | -0.54,(-1.60; 0.52) | P = 0.32 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.85 | ||
| DLPFC | 2(n = 64) | 1.19,(0.77; 1.61) | P<0.00001 | I2 = 0%, P = 0.68 | ||
| SMA | 1(n = 30) | -5.8,(-7.95;-3.65) | P<0.00001 | - | ||
| UPDRSIII | 11(n = 489) | -0.66,(-0.84; -0.47) | P = 0.000 | I2 = 35%, P = 0.083 | Egger’s test, P = 0.976 |