Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21511025›Full record

SynthesisExperimental gerontology2011

Noninvasive brain stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: systematic review and perspectives for the future.

Catarina Freitas, Helena Mondragón-Llorca, Alvaro Pascual-Leone

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Experimental gerontology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Neurostimulation in Alzheimer's disease: from basic research to clinical applications.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Catarina FreitasBerenson-Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Helena Mondragón-Llorca
Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Berenson Allen Center for Noninvasive Brain Stimulation · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

HARVARD CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE CENTER (UL1)UL1RR025758 · NCRR · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2008 to 2011
$91.4M
Study and Modulation of Brian PlasticityK24RR018875 · NCRR · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI PASCUAL-LEONE, ALVARO · 2004 to 2008
$602k
NCRR NIH HHS K24 RR018875NCRR NIH HHS K24-RR018875NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025758
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of studies have applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to physiologically characterize Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to monitor effects of pharmacological agents, while others have begun to therapeutically use TMS and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to improve cognitive function in AD. These applications are still very early in development, but offer the opportunity of learning from them for future development.

methodsWe performed a systematic search of all studies using noninvasive stimulation in AD and reviewed all 29 identified articles. Twenty-four focused on measures of motor cortical reactivity and (local) plasticity and functional connectivity, with eight of these studies assessing also effects of pharmacological agents. Five studies focused on the enhancement of cognitive function in AD.

resultsShort-latency afferent inhibition (SAI) and resting motor threshold are significantly reduced in AD patients as compared to healthy elders. Results on other measures of cortical reactivity, e.g. intracortical inhibition (ICI), are more divergent. Acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors and dopaminergic drugs may increase SAI and ICI in AD. Motor cortical plasticity and connectivity are impaired in AD. TMS/tDCS can induce acute and short-duration beneficial effects on cognitive function, but the therapeutic clinical significance in AD is unclear. Safety of TMS/tDCS is supported by studies to date.

conclusionsTMS/tDCS appears safe in AD, but longer-term risks have been insufficiently considered. TMS holds promise as a physiologic biomarker in AD to identify therapeutic targets and monitor pharmacologic effects. In addition, TMS/tDCS may have therapeutic utility in AD, though the evidence is still very preliminary and cautious interpretation is warranted.

Indexed as

CognitionNeuronal PlasticityAlzheimer DiseaseCerebral CortexFemaleForecastingHumansMaleTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID21511025
PMCPMC3589803
OpenAlexW1993900447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 OpenQuestion graph.