Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37528850›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2023

Transcranial magnetic stimulation effects on cognitive enhancement in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yixin Yan, Minjie Tian, Tong Wang, Xixi Wang, Yingying Wang, Jingping Shi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Clinical Effectiveness of Treatments for Mild Cognitive Impairment in Adults: A Systematic Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yixin YanDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Minjie TianDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Tong WangDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xixi WangDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yingying WangDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jingping ShiDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Nanjing Brain Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive intervention that holds promise for improving cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the effectiveness of this therapy and the optimal TMS parameters has not reached a consensus. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to systematically discern the effectiveness of different components of TMS protocols on cognitive improvement in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. Methods: The meta-analysis was preregistered on Prospero (registration number: CRD42022345482). PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases were used to search, screen and identify eligible studies with the following keywords: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation OR TMS OR theta burst stimulation AND Alzheimer OR Alzheimers OR Alzheimer's OR mild cognitive impairment OR MCI. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with accepted standardized diagnostic criteria were searched by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influential factors. Results: A total of 21 studies and 25 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The findings revealed a significant overall cognition improvement of real stimulation compared with sham stimulation (short-term effects: SMD, 0.91; 95% CI 0.44-1.38; Conclusion: Cognitive improvement effect of TMS was demonstrated in MCI and AD patients in both short-term assessment and long-lasting outcomes, and the efficiency of TMS is affected by the stimulation frequency, stimulation site, and participant characteristics. Further RCTs are needed to validate the findings of our subgroup analysis. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022345482, identifier: CRD42022345482.

Indexed as

Alzheimer's diseasecerebellumcognitionmeta-analysismild cognitive impairmenttranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID37528850
PMCPMC10389278

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.