MS - Diagnosis

Multiple Sclerosis - Diagnosis
"Multiple Sclerosis," 1955
Douglas McAlpine (1890–1981); Nigel Compston (1918–1986); Charles Lumsden (1913–1974).

History - dx criteria
-Allison and Millar 1954
-McAlpine 1957, 1965
-Schumacher 1965
-McDonald and Halliday 1977
-Poser 1983
-McDonald (International) criteria 2001, 2005, 2010, 2017, 2024

Considerations
-MS remains dx of exclusion
-20% misdx
-MS dx→ DIS + biological ± DIT (optional)

Questions
Q1 Does the patient have a syndrome compatible with MS?
Q2 Is there any better explanation?
Q3 Does the patient meet DIS?
Q4 Is there biological evidence supporting MS?

Q1 Compatible presentation?
-ON
-TM
-Brainstem syndrome
-Cerebellar syndrome
-Classic CIS
-Progressive
-Incidental lesions

Q2 Better explanation?
-Migraine
>Tiny T2 lesion
-Vascular disease
>MVD: HTN, DM, smoking
-NMOSD, MOGAD
-Spinal dural AVF
-Metabolic or infectious myelopathies

Q3 DIS?
Definition
≥1 T2 lesion in ≥2 of the 5 locations

PISCO
Periventricular, Infratentorial, Spinal cord, Cortical/juxtacortical, Optic nerve

How to confirm ON
-OCT: ≥6 µm pRNFL difference or ≥4 µm GCIPL difference
-VEP: P100 latency prolongation
-MRI: intrinsic ON lesions, w/o chiasmal/perineuritis features

Q4 Biological evidence or DIT?
DIT
-Not req
>substituted by DIS + paraclinical markers
-Definition
>New T2 lesion
>New Gd+ lesion
>Simultaneous Gd+ and non‑enhancing lesions

Biological evidence
-CSF Markers
>OCBs
>kFLC

-MRI Markers
>CVS
>PRLS

Reverse algorithm



OBSERVATIONS

RIS/CIS to MS
-RIS at 10y→ 50-51%
-CIS at 20y→ 60-70%

Higher-misdx-risk
≥50 yo individuals 
-Should have bMRI and more 1 of below
>Spinal cord lesion
>Select‑6 CVS
>Positive CSF marker

Unified framework
Relapsing MS→ RRMS; Progressive MS→ PPMS or SPMS
-RRMS→ Clinical relapse or DIT + DIS (or CSF OCB/kFLC)
-PPMS→ 1 year progression + DIS + CSF OCB/kFLC
-SPMS→ Relapsing MS + progression

Investigation
OCB-CSF
≥2 OCBs in CSF that are NOT in serum = POSITIVE
-Think: “2 = MS”

kFLC
-High kFLC index = intrathecal IgG production = MS‑supportive
-kFLC index ≥6.1 = positive (supports MS)

CVS
-MS lesion = vein in the middle
≠mimics: migraine or MVD
-SELECT-6: ≥6 lesions, and at least 6 of them show a CVS
>Use susceptibility-based imaging (2/2 inside vein deoxyHb)
  SWI (prefer clinical), T2* EPI (research) FLAIR* (FLAIR combined with T2*/SWI)
  Look for a dark vein running through the lesion center
TIP: 3D FLAIR (s/f lesion), switch SWI (is CVS?), switch FLAIR* to confirm; lesion in 2-planes
PRLS
-Iron-ring lesions = chronic active MS lesions
>Iron‑laden microglia
-Criteria: ≥1 PRL lesion (SP99.7%)
*≥4 PRLS associated w/ ↑ disability (research)
>Use susceptibility-based imaging
  SWI (prefer), T2*
  Look for dark paramagnetic rim around a FLAIR-bright lesion
TIP: FLAIR (s/f lesion), switch to SWI, exclude other causes (CVS, hemosiderin from trauma, MCB, calcification); s/f periventricular first; lesion in 2-planes


ESUS

ESUS (Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source)

Investigation
≠TTE, TEE, Cardiac CT, and Cardiac MRI




DBS - Intro

DBS Programming - Intro
Neurophys
-DBS activate axons
-DBS ↓excessive synchronization in motor network
-DBS activates multiple populations

Parts
-Brain electrode
-IPG/Battery
-Patient programmer
-Clinician programmer

Brain electrodes
Medtronic
-3389 ring (0.5mm spacing)
-3387 ring (1.5mm spacing)
-Segmented (Sensight), 0.5 or 1.5mm spacing

Abbott (formerly St. Jude)
-Segmented, 0.5 or 1.5mm spacing

Boston Scientific
-8 ring contacts
-Segmented 8 contact (Cartesia)
-Segmented 16 contacts (Cartesia X & HX)
-all 0.5mm spacing
IPG
Medtronic
-Activa
>PC (primary cell, dual channel)
>SC (primary cell, single channel)
>RC (rechargeable, dual channel)
-Percept PC (primary cell, dual channel, sensing)
-Percept RC (rechargeable, dual channel, sensing)

Abbott
-Infinity 5 (primary cell, dual channel, small)
-Infinity 7 (primary cell, dual channel, large)
-Liberta RC (rechargeable, dual channel)

Boston Scientific
-Vercise (rechargeable, dual channel)
-Vercise Gevia (rechargeable, dual channel, wand)
-Vercise Genus R16 or P32 (rechargeable, 2-4 leads, Bluetooth)
-Vercise Genus P16 or P32 (primary cell, 2-4 leads, Bluetooth)
Clinician programmer
-Medtronic tablet (Samsung)
-Abbott tablet (iPad)
-Boston Scientific tablet (Surface)
Patient programmer
-Medtronic (Samsung smartphone or remote)
-Abbott (iPad mini)
-Boston Scientific (remote; Gevia-gray; Genus-black)

Adjustable parameters
-Amplitude (2-3 mA or V)
>Spread of stimulation
-Pulse width (60-90 μs)
>Time linger in tissue
-Frequency (130-180 Hz)
>Least important
>↑Hz (180)→ tremor; ↓Hz→ gait

Nomenclature
General
-Leads vs Electrodes vs Contact
-Negative contact = cathode
>active contact; most neural activation
-Positive contact = anode
>current return; some neural activation
-Contact labelling
-Therapy impedance and current
Medtronic Percept
Ring
>0–3(L); 8–11(R)
Segmented
>0, 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3
>8, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11
*Segments labeled counter-clockwise
 L brain: A (ant), B (lat), C (med)
 R brain: A (ant), B (med), C (lat)
*Multiple current source, so each contact assigned its own amplitude

Abbott
-U/L: 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4
-R: 9, 10A, 10B, 10C, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12
*Segment A usually implanted anterior (but can rotate)
*Segments labeled clockwise
 L brain: A (ant), B (med), C (lat) 
 R brain: A (ant), B (lat), C (med)
*Single current source, so one amplitude split between contacts

Boston Scientific
Ring
>U/L: 1–8
>R: 1–8 (old 9–16)
Segmented
>L: 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4 (previously 1, 2/3/4, 5/6/7, 8)
>R: same as Left (previously 9, 10/11/12, 13/14/15, 16)
*Segments labeled counter-clockwise
 L brain: A (ant), B (lat), C (med)
 R brain: A (ant), B (med), C (lat)
*Multiple current source, so each contact assigned its own amplitude

Segment leads - orientation
-Stereotactic marker for determining orientation of segments
-Leads typically implanted with segment A facing anterior
>Medtronic: proximal marker (triangle down) aligned with segment A; distal marker (triangle up) aligned with B
>Boston, Abbot: vertical marker aligned with segment A
-Repeat X-ray or CT for orientation
Contact configuration
-monopolar, double monopolar, fractionated monopolar, wide bipolar, narrow bipolar, double bipolar
First Programming
-2-4wks after procedure 2/2 micro-lesioning effect
-For PD, hold meds
-Check surgical sites
-Monopolar mapping
>Explain side effects
>Choose 130hz and 60us, adjust amplitude
>Amplitude jumps 0.5 if paresthesias 0.1
>Neuro-exam, including speechs for every change in amplitude
Side effect map
Vim
-Muscle contraction→ Lat
-Dysarthria→ Lat/Posteromedial
-Paresthesia→ Post
-Ataxia→ Ventral
-No side effect >5mA→ Sup/Ant
STN
-Paresthesia→ Medial/Post
-Muscle contraction→ Lat/Ant
-Dysarthria→ Lat/Ant
-Mood→ Inf/Med
-Autonomic→ no specific region
>Diplopia→ anteromedial
-Dyskinesia→ at the site!
-No side effect >5mA→ Sup/Ant
GPi
-Muscle contractions→ PostMed
-Dysarthria→ PostMed
-Phosphenes→ DeepMed
-Dyskinesia→ at the site!
-Bradykinesia→ Med
-FOG→ Med
-No side effect >5mA→ Ant/Lat/Dorsal
*High stimulation can worse tremor, dystonia
Electrode position
-bMRI
Tips
-Always save old settings
-Teach patient
>patient programmer
>DBS do's and don'ts
-Fu every mo for 6mo
-Refer to monopolar map, redo if needed
-If no benefit after 2 sessions, do imaging for lead position

Future adjustments
-ET→ Taper off after stimulation
-PD→ Meds for NMS
>STN→ med red 2/2 DKN
>GPi→ can maintain same regimen
-DTN→  retain pre-op meds

Warnings
-Diathermy (‘deep heating’)
-Electrical or radiofrequency therapeutic devices (keep away from head/chest)
-Electrocautery (surgery)
-Lithotripsy
-MRI (heating effect)
-TMS, ECT
-Magnetic fields
-Metal/theft detectors (airport report pacemaker and request pat down)
-Store refrigerators, industrial microwave ovens
-Arc welding equipment, high voltage power lines
-Effect on other medical devices (external defibrillation, cardiac pacemakers)

IPG longevity
PCs→ 3-5y

Impedance
>10,000ohm→ break along contact
 Will not affect stimulation if that contact is unused
-3000-5000→ not problem (but ↑V if CV mode)
-Segments can have ‘high’ bipolar impedance (>10,000 ohm) but not a problem if monopolar impedances wnl
-Low impedance (10-100)→ short in circuit
>Stimulation will be applied to all shorted contacts even if they are not “turned on”
>Quick battery drain if stimulation applied between two shorted contacts (one +, the other -) so do not do

Refine parameters
-If low side effect thresholds, try bipolar or directional:
>Use most optimal contact as negative in bipolar configuration
>Perform monopolar mapping for each segment on the best level
-If unable to achieve benefit with single contact, try double-monopolar stimulation using two adjacent contacts
>Double monopolar if high side effects thresholds (or fractionate current to avoid side effects)
>Double bipolar if low side effects threshold
-Establish best contact first, before changing PW and frequency
>Lower PW if side effects
>Increase frequency for tremor
>Increase PW for more benefit (can also increase amplitude)

Visual Hallucinations

Visual Hallucination
"To see is to believe"… until it isn't
The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio, c. 1602

Concepts — We assume:
-Vision = direct access to reality
-What we see = the external world
-Perception = truth

VH break this link
VH show the brain can generate convincing experiences w/o external input
Perception becomes internally driven, not sensory‑driven

Clinical importance
-Pure VH→ neuro > psych cause
-Especially common in PD/LBD due to cholinergic deficits, which reduce sensory precision & increase VH likelihood

Pathophysiology
VH emerge when:
-Sensory input is too weak
-Predictions are too strong
-Prediction errors are ignored or down‑weighted
→ A failure of perceptual updating

Expectancies
-Based on memory, context, intentions, emotions
>Hospital corridor at night→ expect a person
>Forest→ expect movement/animals
-If sensory data can’t correct predictions→ VH dominate

Sensory data
-If eyes/visual pathways provide strong data→ predictions get corrected
-If sensory data is weak→ predictions “win”
>Visual deprivation: darkness, eye disease, clutter→ major triggers

Attention sets the precision of sensory signals
-If attention leans toward expectations→ VH strengthens
-If attention is weak→ poor correction of faulty predictions
>Insight often decreases when attention and arousal drop

Object attention
-We choose which object to process deeply
>Dim room + chair + strong expectation of a person→ poor sensory input + poor object attention→ you see someone on the chair

Spatial attention — Orienting
-You move eyes/head toward expected location
-Strong expectation→ you “see” someone there even with minimal sensory evidence

Spatial attention — Modulating
-You boost peripheral sensitivity (often with anxiety)
-Ambiguous motion→ becomes an animal or figure (common in delirium)

Arousal
-Both very high and very low arousal increase VH risk
-Seen in sleep transitions, delirium, LBD fluctuations

Thalamocortical Synchrony
When disrupted:
-Prediction errors fail
-Updating fails
-Perception becomes unstable
→ fertile ground for VH

Trait & State
-VH = long‑term vulnerability + moment‑to‑moment instability
-Trait: memory‑based expectations, network degeneration, chronic attentional bias
-State: current predictions, sensory precision, arousal level, attention allocation

Why content varies (faces, animals, people)
-Because different higher‑level priors dominate:
>Faces→ fusiform face area bias (brain is hardwired to detect faces)
>Animals→ motion + biological form priors
>People→ social memory networks

Why patients often believe VH are real
-The same perceptual systems activate as if the object were truly present
-It’s not imagination — it’s perception without external input

Why VH are episodic
-VH need the “perfect storm”
-Weak input + strong predictions + attention shift + arousal fluctuation
→ explains waxing/waning in PD/LBD and delirium

Practical bedside triggers
-Dim lighting
-Fatigue
-Sensory deprivation
-Too much visual clutter
-Rapid changes in arousal
-Social isolation
-Small changes can flip the system from stable→ VH

Chorea-Acanthocytosis

Chorea-Acanthocytosis
History - Nomenclature
"Neuroacanthocytosis Syndromes"
1960s Levine-Critchley syndrome
1970-2001 Neuroacanthocytosis
2001-2017 Chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc), McLeod syndrome, PKAN/HARP, HD-like 2
2017... The four syndromes (VPS13a, XK, JPH3, and PANK2)

VPS13 gene family overview
VPS13a (9q21)→ ChAc (2/2 loss-of-function)
VPS13b (8q22)→ Cohen
VPS13c (15q22-23)→ EOPD w/ cognitive impairment
VPS13d (1q36)→ EO dystonia, chorea, and spastic ataxia
-Lipid transport regulation, 13d is mitochondrial stabilization
-13a protein=chorein

Clinical manifestations
-Rare, but likely underdiagnosed 2/2 overlap
-AR
-Typical 20-40yo
-Key dx triad chorea + acanthocytosis (smear) + ↑CK
-Progressive, mean duration 11y
-Common presentation: abnormal facial movements and lip biting
Chorea distribution
-difficulty to keep food in mouth, later limb involvement
-Self-mutilating behavior
Acanthocyte (Spur)
-Acanthocyte (narrow-base) ≠ echinocyte (large-base)
>5-50%, if absent, repeat smear
>Acanthocyte proportion not correlate w/ disease severity
>Prefer dilute instead of dry
>Abnormal Lyn kinase
Laboratory
-↑CK, LDH, and liver enzymes
-Western blot→ loss of chorein [cover figure]
-Check VPS13a, Labcorp/Invitae panels

Neuroimaging
-Caudate atrophy, use HD parameters
-Possible, T2 signal inc in caudate & putamen or iron deposition
-Rare, hippocampal sclerosis
Videos
Rubber man
-Truncal instability and sudden, violent trunk spasms
Rubber man
≠Functional
Rubber man
-occasional loss of muscle tone in LE leading to gait instability
Rubber man
-appearing flaccid or unsupported while walking
Dystonic rubber man
Head drops
-Sudden loss of extensor tone in post cervical region
-Exaggerate chorea with extend & lowering the arms
-Trick→ cross arm over chest/ cross behind the neck
Trunk drops
Feeding dystonia
-common presentation
Feeding dystonia
-Tongue protrusion & jaw opening occur when she places a morsel of food in her mouth
Feeding dystonia
-Action-induced tongue protrusion while eating
Feeding dystonia
-VFSS sequence shows feeding & chewing interrupted by tongue protrusion dystonia, with subsequent normal pharyngeal & esophageal phases
Jaw-opening dystonia
-years after PD sx
Co-variations
VPS13a and JPH3
-same phenotype as VPS13a
Ddx
-McLeod syndrome
-HD
-WD
-Drug-induced DKN
-DRPLA, PKAN, NBIA
Ttx
-Feeding difficulties
>G-tube
-Chorea symptomatics
>DBS STN/GPi
-Anti-seizure medicaitons
-DMT
>Nilotinib?

Abstract - Do Robotics Really Help in Parkinson’s Rehabilitation? Meta-Analysis Reveals Modest Gains

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.

Abstract - GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for Motor and Non-Motor Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Abstract - Effects of Yoga on Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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.

Abstract - Treadmill Training Improves Motor and Balance Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Title: Treadmill Training Improves Motor and Balance Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Authors: Jamir Pitton Rissardo, Ana Leticia Fornari Caprara, and Ian M. Walker

Conference: 2026 MDS-PAS, Houston, TX

Objective
To systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of treadmill training (TT) on motor symptoms, gait, functional mobility, and quality of life in Parkinson’s disease.

Background
Gait impairment and reduced mobility are major contributors to disability in Parkinson’s disease. Treadmill training has been proposed as a targeted intervention to improve walking performance and motor function, but its efficacy across clinical outcomes remains uncertain.

Design/Methods
A systematic search of PubMed was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treadmill training (TT) in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Eligible studies compared TT with conventional physiotherapy in adults diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Primary outcomes included motor symptoms (UPDRS-III), gait speed, stride length, functional mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG]), walking capacity (6-Minute Walk Test [6MWT]), and quality of life (PDQ-39). Data were pooled using mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I².

Results
Seven RCTs were included. TT significantly improved motor symptoms (UPDRS-III ON: MD −1.47; 95% CI −2.72 to −0.22; I² = 0%) and balance (BBS: MD 3.61; 95% CI 1.90 to 5.32; I² = 96%). Functional mobility showed a small, non-significant effect (TUG: SMD −0.35; 95% CI −0.95 to 0.25; I² = 0%). Walking capacity improvements were modest and not statistically significant (6MWT: SMD 0.34; 95% CI −0.32 to 0.99; I² = 49%). Quality-of-life changes were minimal (PDQ-39: MD −1.88; 95% CI −7.97 to 4.22; I² = 0%). TT was generally safe, with low dropout rates and minimal adverse events.

Conclusions
Treadmill training provides significant benefits for motor symptoms and balance in PD, with uncertain effects on functional mobility, walking capacity, and quality of life. Incorporating TT into multimodal rehabilitation programs may enhance outcomes.

Citation
Rissardo JP, Caprara ALF, Walker I. Treadmill Training Improves Motor and Balance Outcomes in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2026;13(S1):S97–S98. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.7047.
Figure 1. Forest plots showing pooled effects of interventions on UPDRS‑III (ON), TUG, BBS, 6‑MWT, and PDQ‑39 outcomes across included studies.

Abstract - Bidirectional Association Between Parkinson's Disease and Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Title: Bidirectional Association Between Parkinson's Disease and Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors: Jamir Pitton Rissardo, Ana Leticia Fornari Caprara, and Ian M. Walker

Conference: 2026 MDS-PAS, Houston, TX

Objective
To quantify the bidirectional association between Parkinson’s disease (PD) and skin cancers, including melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and to explore subgroup differences.

Background
Observational studies suggest a link between PD and melanoma, but the magnitude, directionality, and influence of subgroups remain unclear.

Design/Methods
We systematically reviewed PubMed-indexed observational studies reporting melanoma or NMSC occurrence in PD patients or vice versa. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed with τ² and I². Most included studies were case-control designs, and results are summarized as risk ratios (RR).

Results
Thirty-one studies were included. For melanoma preceding PD, the random-effect estimate was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.02–1.78). For PD preceding melanoma, the random-effect estimate was 1.45 (0.98–2.13). For NMSC preceding PD, the estimate was 0.9 (0.71–1.14). When analyzed by cancer type, melanoma overall (22 studies) showed a random-effects estimate of 1.48 (1.15–1.91). NMSC overall (10 studies) showed a fixed-effect estimate of 1.15 (0.73–1.81). Gender-specific estimates from single studies were as follows: melanoma in males 2.75 (0.25–30.10), melanoma in females 0.69 (0.06–7.52), NMSC in males 0.93 (0.59–1.46), and NMSC in females 1.18 (0.56–2.47).

Conclusions
PD and melanoma demonstrate a consistent bidirectional association with low heterogeneity. Evidence for NMSC and gender-specific effects is limited and inconclusive.

Citation
Rissardo JP, Caprara ALF, Walker I. Bidirectional Association Between Parkinson's Disease and Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Mov Disord Clin Pract 2026;13(S1):S68. doi: 10.1002/mdc3.7047.
Figure 1. Scatterplot of standardized treatment effects against inverse standard error, with regression line illustrating the relationship between study precision and effect magnitude.
Figure 2. L’Abbé plot showing experimental versus control event rates with study‑size weighting and fitted treatment‑effect trend lines
Figure 3. Contour‑enhanced funnel plot illustrating study effect sizes, confidence regions, and fixed‑ and random‑effects model estimates.