Effects of Wearable Devices on Parkinson Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials...

Parkinson disease (PD) impairs gait, balance, and quality of life, and wearable devices have been proposed to support rehabilitation, but evidence for their clinical efficacy remains uncertain.

This study aimed to evaluate, within the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework, the effects of wearable-device interventions on gait performance, balance, and health-related quality of life in people with PD by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 18, 2025, for RCTs in people with PD comparing wearable-device interventions with control conditions. We used Hartung-Knapp random-effects models to pool mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) and reported 95% prediction intervals when ≥3 studies were pooled. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

Nine RCTs involving 260 participants were included. Wearable devices produced a small improvement in stride length (MD 0.10 meter, 95% CI 0.03-0.17), but there was no clear benefit for the 10-Meter Walk Test time (MD 0.04 second, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.15). Double support time showed no reduction (MD -1.59% gait cycle, 95% CI -3.79 to 0.61). Freezing of gait (Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [FOG-Q] and New Freezing of Gait Questionnaire [NFOG-Q]) did not significantly improve (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.24). Motor severity (Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III [UPDRS III]) showed a small, nonsignificant trend favoring wearable devices (MD -2.16 points, 95% CI -4.39 to 0.07). For balance, pooled results from the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), and Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment Balance Subscale (POMA balance) suggested a borderline effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.98). Wearable devices did not meaningfully improve Parkinson Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) scores (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.17), EQ-5D utility (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.44), or Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) scores (MD -0.04, 95% CI -1.10 to 1.02). Prediction intervals frequently crossed the null, suggesting effects may vary by setting and population.

Wearable device interventions for Parkinson disease produced a small improvement on average in stride length, with no consistent benefits for other gait outcomes, balance, or patient-centered outcomes. By integrating ICF mapping with Hartung-Knapp meta-analysis, prediction intervals, and GRADE, and avoiding pooling of conceptually distinct gait measures used in prior reviews, this review clarifies where evidence is most consistent, supports using wearables as adjuncts to rehabilitation, and underscores the need for larger, longer RCTs with standardized outcomes to determine who benefits and how to implement them.

PROSPERO CRD42024585686; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024585686.