SynthesisFrontiers in aging neuroscience2024
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer's disease: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques on cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease and MCI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Therapeutic potential and mechanisms of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: a literature review.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Decreased prefrontal activation during verbal fluency task after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for depression in Alzheimer's disease: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a prevalent neurodegenerative condition that significantly impacts both individuals and society. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for AD by summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Methods: SRs/MAs of rTMS for AD were collected by searching Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Sino-Med, and Wanfang databases. The search was conducted from database creation to January 23, 2024. Methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). In addition, the quality of evidence for outcome measures was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Eight SRs/MAs included in this study met the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 4 of the SRs/MA were classified as low quality, while the remaining 4 were deemed to be of very low quality. The PRISMA analysis revealed that out of the 27 items reporting, 16 achieved full reporting (100%). However, there were still some deficiencies in reporting, particularly related to protocol and registration, search strategy, risk of bias, and additional analysis. The ROBIS tool indicated that only 3 SRs/MAs had a low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment indicated that 6 outcomes were of moderate quality (18.75%), 16 were of low quality (50%), and 10 were classified as very low quality (31.25%). Conclusion: Based on the evidence collected, rTMS appears to be effective in improving cognitive function in AD patients, although the methodological quality of the SRs/MAs reduces the reliability of the conclusions and the overall quality is low. However, based on the available results, we still support the value of rTMS as an intervention to improve cognitive function in AD. In future studies, it is necessary to confirm the efficacy of rTMS in AD patients and provide more reliable and scientific data to contribute to evidence-based medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.