SynthesisFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Effectiveness of noninvasive brain stimulation techniques on cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease and MCI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may alleviate cognitive impairments in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, clinical findings remain inconsistent, highlighting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of NIBS. Objective: To compare the effects of NIBS and sham stimulation on global cognition in individuals with AD. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials by using relevant search terms. Cognitive outcomes were assessed using objective scales, and pooled standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: NIBS was associated with significant improvements in global cognition in individuals with AD, as measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; standardized mean difference = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.84, Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence for the effects of NIBS on common cognitive outcomes in AD and explores potential moderators related to sample and intervention characteristics. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251065634.
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.