Study ID

Study type

Group/arm,

A or B (n)

Mean age, y (SD)

Type of PD patients (n)

rTMS frequency, latency, intensity

rTMS number of sessions and duration

rTMS site stimulation

Adverse effect

Follow up period

Chang, 2016

[18]

Randomized, single-blinded, crossover pilot study

A rTMS, followed by crossover (2 weeks) to sham stimulation (n = 4)

B sham stimulation, followed by

Crossover (2 weeks) to rTMS

(n = 4)

71.9 (7.8)

VP (n = 5)

PSP (n = 2)

MSA (n = 1)

High frequency

Twenty trains of 10 Hz

Intensity of 90% RMT

5 sessions, over a week

M1-LL region (over dominant hemisphere)

Non-neuronavigational approach

Reported no significant AE

Followed up at 12 days post stimulation

Dagan, 2017

[32]

Randomized, cross-over exploratory study

A rTMS, followed by crossover (1 weeks) to sham stimulation

B sham stimulation, followed by

Crossover (1 weeks) to rTMS

(total n = 7)

74.57 (7.09)

IPD (n = 7)

10 Hz with 2100 pulses per session

16 session over 8 weeks (4 weeks intensive and 4 weeks maintenance)

Bilateral mPFC

Non-neuronavigational approach

Unbearable forehead pain (n = 1)

Unexpected elbow and shoulder

movement (n = 1)

NB: Dropped out patients (n = 2)

Discomfort

during the stimulation (n = 4)

No follow up

El-Tamawy, 2013 [22]

Double blinded,

placebo controlled study

A real rTMS stimulation, (n = 8)

B sham rTMS stimulation, (n = 8)

67 (7.32)

IPD (n = 16)

Ten trains of 50 stimuli each delivered at 1 Hz

Intensity of 90% RMT

12 sessions over 4 weeks

M1-LL region

(contralateral to

the more affected side)

Non-neuronavigational approach

Mild transient

headache (n = 3)

Followed up at 3 months

Kim M.S., 2015 [12]

Randomized, double-blinded

crossover study

A rTMS, followed by crossover (2 weeks) to sham stimulation

B sham stimulation, followed by

Crossover (2 weeks) to rTMS

(total n = 17)

64.5 (8.4)

IPD (n = 17)

High frequency

Twenty trains of 10 Hz

Intensity of 90% RMT

5 sessions, over a week

M1-LL region (over dominant hemisphere)

Non-neuronavigational approach

Mild transient

headache (n = 1)

Acute aggravation of

previous heart disease -that was unrelated to this study- (n = 1)

NB: Dropped out patients (n = 2)

Followed up at 12 days post stimulation

Kim S.J., 2018 [23]

Pseudorandomized, double-blind, parallel

study

A real rTMS stimulation over MC, (n = 6)

B real rTMS stimulation over SMA, (n = 6)

68.5 (7.1)

IPD (n = 12)

15 to 25 pulse trains of 1-second duration

at 25 Hz

Intensity of 100% RMT

2 sessions, over two days

left MC (hand area) or SMA

Non-neuronavigational approach

No data regarding AE

No follow up

Lee, 2014 [19]

Randomized, double-blinded

crossover study

Real rTMS, to each region + one sham rTMS stimulation

(total n = 19)

71.6 (8.6)

VP (n = 6)

IPD (n = 7)

LBD (n = 1)

MSA-P (n = 5)

High frequency

Twenty trains of 10 Hz

Intensity of 90% RMT

Single session over each of the three regions ( + sham) separated by 24 hours interval

M1-LL, SMA, and DLPFC regions (over dominant hemisphere)

Non-neuronavigational approach

Transient

headache and nausea (n = 1)

NB: Dropped out patients (n = 1)

No follow up

Rektorova, 2007 [21]

Randomized, non-controlled,

pilot study

Real rTMS, stimulation to each region (single arm)

(n = 4)

63.7 (7.7)

IPD (n = 4)

10 Hz, 1,350 pulses

Intensity 90% RMT

5 sessions, over 5 days

Both left M1-LL and DLPFC region

Non-neuronavigational approach

Reported no significant AE

NB: Dropped out patients (n = 2) ® withdrew consent

No follow up

Thomassen and Arns, 2010 [20]

Non-controlled/single arm study

Real rTMS, stimulation (single arm)

(n = 13)

65.7 (10.1)

IPD (n = 13)

5Hz

Intensity 120% RMT

10 sessions (3- 4 session per week; ~ over 3 weeks)

MC region for hand (on both right and left hemispheres) and leg area

Non-neuronavigational approach

No data regarding AE

No follow up