SynthesisBMC neurology2025
Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in cognitive impairment of neurodegenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of transcranial alternating current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Evidence Certainty of High-Frequency rTMS for Cognitive Impairment Across Neuropsychiatric Disorders: An Umbrella Review.Brain and behavior · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCurrently, there is a lack of reliable evidence to prove the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the cognitive and emotional domains of neurodegenerative diseases (ND), leading to the absence of a unified and effective rTMS treatment protocol or stimulation targets. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes existing evidence to evaluate the efficacy of rTMS targeting the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and non-DLPFC in the cognitive and emotional aspects of ND.
methodsFor two common types of ND Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD), we included 17 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from five databases. Search terms included rTMS, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, and randomized controlled studies. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias in the included literature, performed data extraction, and evaluated the evidence. Treatment effects were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Data were analyzed using R software to evaluate effect sizes and 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity tests were conducted to assess differences in treatment effects between DLPFC and non-DLPFC.
resultsWe screened 3,467 articles and identified 17 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed significant effects: MoCA (MD: 2.13, 95% CI [0.75, 3.52], p < 0.001); MMSE (MD: 1.16, 95% CI [0.91, 1.41], p = 0.0075); HAMD (MD: -2.63, 95% CI [-6.45, -1.20], p = 0.14); HAMA (SMD: -0.62, 95% CI [-0.91, -0.33], p < 0.001); ADL (MD: -0.56, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.22], p = 0.48).
conclusionrTMS has a positive effect on cognitive impairment and emotional abnormalities associated with ND. There is a significant difference in MoCA scores between rTMS applied to DLPFC and non-DLPFC. DLPFC may serve as a reliable stimulation target for treating non-motor symptoms related to ND (such as cognitive and emotional issues), which is beneficial for developing an rTMS treatment protocol with broad applicability for ND. However, due to the small number of included studies and the indirect nature of the comparison methods, we should interpret these results with caution.
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.