Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27503083›Full record

SynthesisJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2016

A systematic review of the effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition.

Claudia Lage, Katherine Wiles, Sukhwinder S Shergill, Derek K Tracy

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Does non-invasive brain stimulation modulate emotional stress reactivity?Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Claudia LageCognition, Schizophrenia and Imaging Laboratory, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Katherine WilesKing's College London School of Medicine, London, UK.
Sukhwinder S ShergillCognition, Schizophrenia and Imaging Laboratory, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Derek K TracyCognition, Schizophrenia and Imaging Laboratory, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. derek.tracy@oxleas.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rTMS is increasingly used for a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions. There are data to support 'fast' rTMS (≥10 Hz) having some positive effects on cognitive functioning, but a dearth of research looking at any such effects of 'slow' rTMS. This question is important as cognitive dysfunction accompanies many neuropsychiatric conditions and neuromodulation that potentially enhances or hinders such functioning has important clinical consequences. To determine cognitive effects of slow (≤1 Hz) rTMS, a systematic review of randomized control trials assayed cognition in neurological, psychiatric, and healthy volunteer ≤1 Hz rTMS paradigms. Both active (fast rTMS) and placebo comparators were included. 497 Records were initially obtained; 20 met inclusion criteria for evaluation. Four major categories emerged: mood disorders; psychotic disorders; cerebrovascular accidents; and 'other' (PTSD, OCD, epilepsy, anxiety, and tinnitus). Cognitive effects were measured across several domains: attention, executive functioning, learning, and psychomotor speed. Variability of study paradigms and reporting precluded meta-analytical analysis. No statistically significant improvement or deterioration was consistently found in any cognitive domain or illness category. These data support the overall safety of rTMS in not adversely affecting cognitive functioning. There are some data indicating that rTMS might have cognitive enhancing potential, but these are too limited at this time to make any firm conclusions, and the literature is marked by considerable heterogeneity in study parameters that hinder interpretation. Greater consensus is required in future studies in cognitive markers, and particularly in reporting of protocols. Future work should evaluate the effects of rTMS on cognitive training.

Indexed as

AttentionCognition DisordersExecutive FunctionHumansMental DisordersMood DisordersNeuropsychological TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeTranscranial Magnetic StimulationCognitionNeuropsychiatryrTMSSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27503083
PMCPMC5110586

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.