AUTHOR=Zhang Peiying , Su Xiaojuan , Han Xuan , Zhao Dingmeng , Wang Jinyan , Yang Yanyi , Ye Hejiang 

TITLE=Comparative efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for Parkinson’s disease with constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Neurology

VOLUME=Volume 16 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neurology/articles/10.3389/fneur.2025.1579556

DOI=10.3389/fneur.2025.1579556

ISSN=1664-2295

ABSTRACT=BackgroundThis network meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on Parkinson’s disease (PD) with constipation.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in seven major databases (CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], and Wanfang) up to August 2024. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated non-pharmacological interventions for PD with constipation were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using STATA 18 to estimate relative treatment effects.ResultsFrom 2084 initially identified records, 12 RCTs (n = 881 patients) met inclusion criteria. The four interventions evaluated included complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), evidence-based nursing (EBN), physical agents (PAs), and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Direct comparisons revealed significantly superior efficacy for both EBN and PAs compared to control conditions (p < 0.05). The NMA demonstrated consistent superiority of PAs and EBN over passive control, placebo, and sham interventions (all p < 0.05), with the following efficacy hierarchy: PAs (most effective) > EBN > CAM > TCM (least effective).ConclusionOur findings suggest that non-pharmacological approaches, particularly PA-based interventions, may offer clinically meaningful benefits for constipation management in PD. Nevertheless, the relatively small number of available studies and methodological limitations in several trials necessitate cautious interpretation. Further rigorously designed RCTs are warranted to confirm these preliminary observations and establish optimal treatment protocols.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42024565248.