Title: Do Robotics Really Help in Parkinson’s Rehabilitation? Meta-Analysis Reveals Modest Gains
Authors: Ana Leticia Fornari Caprara, Jamir Pitton Rissardo, and Ian M. Walker
Conference: 2026 MDS-PAS, Houston, TX
Objective
To evaluate the effects of robot‑assisted rehabilitation on motor symptoms and functional mobility in Parkinson’s disease (PD).
Background
Robotic technologies are increasingly used to enhance gait and balance training in PD, but their clinical benefit remains uncertain.
Design/Methods
Randomized controlled trials comparing robot‑assisted versus conventional therapy in PD were analyzed. Outcomes (ON‑medication) included UPDRS‑III, UPDRS‑Total, Timed Up and Go (TUG), 6‑Minute Walk Test (6‑MWT), 10‑Meter Walk Test (10‑MWT), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Pooled mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random‑effects models; heterogeneity was assessed with I2.
Results
Robot‑assisted training demonstrated limited to modest effects compared with controls. For UPDRS‑III (ON), the pooled MD was 0.35 (95% CI –1.06 to 1.76; I² = 0%), indicating no significant motor benefit. UPDRS‑Total (ON) favored robotics with an MD of –3.72 (95% CI –5.65 to –1.79; I² = 30%), suggesting a small but statistically significant improvement in overall motor disability. Functional outcomes showed mixed results: TUG had a SMD of 0.13 (95% CI –0.14 to 0.41; I² = 55%), and 10‑MWT showed an SMD of 0.24 (95% CI –0.05 to 0.53; I² = 84%), both indicating small, non‑significant gains with moderate to high heterogeneity. 6‑MWT effects (SMD 0.07; 95% CI –0.24 to 0.38; I² = 91%) and BBS changes (MD 0.45; 95% CI –0.36 to 1.26; I² = 0%) were non-significant.
Conclusions
Robot-assisted rehabilitation provides a small but significant improvement in UPDRS-Total, while showing no meaningful effect on UPDRS-III or functional outcomes (TUG, 6-MWT, 10-MWT, BBS). High heterogeneity in gait measures suggests variability in devices, protocols, and patient characteristics.
Citation
Caprara ALF, Rissardo JP, Walker I. Do Robotics Really Help in Parkinson’s Rehabilitation? Meta-Analysis Reveals Modest Gains. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2026;13(S1):S100–S101. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.7047.
Figure 1. Forest plots showing pooled effects of robotic rehabilitation on UPDRS‑III (ON), UPDRS‑Total (ON), TUG, 6‑MWT, 10‑MWT, and BBS outcomes.
Title: Effects of Yoga on Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors: Ana Leticia Fornari Caprara, Jamir Pitton Rissardo, and Ian M. Walker
Conference: 2026 MDS-PAS, Houston, TX
Objective
To assess the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists on motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD).
Background
GLP-1 receptor agonists, originally developed for diabetes, have shown neuroprotective effects in preclinical PD models. Clinical trials have explored their potential to improve motor and non-motor outcomes, but findings remain inconsistent.
Design/Methods
We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, NLY01) with placebo or standard care in PD. Primary outcomes were changes in Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS-III) in ON and OFF medication states; non-motor symptoms (NMS) were secondary. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using fixed-effect and random-effects models.
Results
Five trials (n.E. 258 and n.C. 239) were included. GLP-1 receptor agonists significantly improved UPDRS-III in the ON state (pooled MD fixed-effect –2.40, 95% CI –3.89 to –0.91; random-effect –2.53, 95% CI –5.01 to –0.06), indicating a meaningful benefit, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 59.3%). Also, a significant effect was observed in the OFF state (pooled MD fixed-effect –1.19, 95% CI –2.34 to –0.04), and heterogeneity was moderate (I2 56.2%). For NMS, the effect was negligible (pooled fixed-effect MD 0.11, 95% CI –2.61 to 2.83; I2 42.4%).
Conclusions
GLP-1 receptor agonists may provide motor benefits in the ON and OFF medication states but show no clear advantage for non-motor symptoms. Moderate to high heterogeneity and limited sample sizes warrant cautious interpretation. Larger, longer-duration trials are needed to confirm potential disease-modifying effects.
Citation
Caprara ALF, Rissardo JP, Walker I. GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Motor and Non-Motor Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2026;13(S1):S99–S100. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.7047.
Figure 1. Forest plots showing pooled effects of GLP‑1 receptor agonists on UPDRS‑III ON, UPDRS‑III OFF, and NMSS outcomes across medication subgroups, with mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.
Title: Effects of Yoga on Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors: Ana Leticia Fornari Caprara, Jamir Pitton Rissardo, and Ian M. Walker
Conference: 2026 MDS-PAS, Houston, TX
Objective
To determine the impact of yoga interventions on motor and non-motor symptoms in individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD).
Background
Yoga, a mind-body practice combining specific body postures, breathing exercises, and mindfulness, has been proposed as an adjunct therapy for PD. While individual trials suggest benefits for motor function and psychological well-being, pooled evidence remains limited.
Design/Methods
We systematically searched major databases (PubMed and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled trials comparing yoga to control interventions in PD. Eligible studies reported changes in motor symptoms (UPDRS-III), balance (Mini-BEST, BBS), freezing of gait (FOG), and psychological outcomes (BAI, HADS-anxiety, HADS-depression). Standardized mean differences (SMD) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect and random-effect models.
Results
Six trials (174 n.E. and n.C 166) met inclusion criteria. Yoga significantly improved motor symptoms [UPDRS-III: MD fixed-effect –3.80 (95% CI: –5.28; –2.33) and random-effect –3.87 (95% CI: –5.44; –2.29); I2 1.5%] and balance [BBS: MD 3.8 (95% CI: 2.19; 5.41)] inconsistently [Mini-BEST: MD 1.98 (95% CI: –0.13; 4.09); I2 0%]. Freezing of gait showed no significant improvement [MD –0.93 (95% CI: –3.52; 1.6)]. For psychological outcomes, yoga was associated with mild reductions in depression [HADS-depression: MD –0.92 (95% CI: –1.43; –0.40); I2 84%]; though anxiety [HADS-anxiety: MD –0.49 (95% CI: –0.99; 0.02); I2 83%] and BAI [SMD –0.52 (95% CI: –1.11; 0.07); I2 85%] results were inconsistent. Heterogeneity was low to high, likely due to differences in yoga practices, session frequency and duration, and disease severity.
Conclusions
Yoga provides clinically meaningful improvements in motor function and balance and may reduce anxiety and depression in PD. These findings support yoga as a safe, accessible adjunct to standard care. Future research should standardize intervention protocols and assess long-term sustainability.
Citation
Caprara ALF, Rissardo JP, Walker I. Effects of Yoga on Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2026;13(S1):S97–S98. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.7047.
Figure 1. Forest plots showing pooled effects of yoga interventions on UPDRS-III, Mini-BEST, HADS-Anxiety, HADS-Depression, and BAI outcomes, with mean differences and 95% confidence intervals.
