Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30312319›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xin Dong, Lanyun Yan, Lin Huang, Xinying Guan, Changhong Dong, Huimin Tao, Teng Wang, Xiaoxuan Qin, Qi Wan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xin DongDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.ORCID 0000-0002-5400-1872
Lanyun YanDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Lin HuangDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Xinying GuanDepartment of Special Medicine, The First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, China.
Changhong DongDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.
Huimin TaoDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Teng WangDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Xiaoxuan QinDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Qi WanDepartment of Neurology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jiangsu Province Hospital · CNThe First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang · CNXuzhou Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies have demonstrated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) may have a beneficial effect in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of rTMS for AD remains inconclusive.

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rTMS in AD.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rTMS for AD. We calculated pooled estimates of mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The protocol was registered at International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (number CRD42018089990).

resultsFive RCTs involving 148 participants were included in this review. Compared with sham stimulation, high-frequency rTMS led to a significant improvement in cognition as measured by ADAS-cog (MD = -3.65, 95% CI -5.82 to -1.48, p = 0.001), but not MMSE (MD = 0.49, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.42, p = 0.62). High-frequency rTMS also improved the global impression in comparison to the placebo (MD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.34, p = 0.0006). There was no significant difference in mood (MD = -1.36, 95% CI -3.93 to 1.21, p = 0.30) and functional performance (MD = 0.59, 95% CI -1.21 to 2.38, p = 0.52) between high-frequency rTMS and sham groups. Only one trial included low-frequency rTMS reported no significant improvement in cognition, mood and functional performance. Few mild adverse events were observed in both the rTMS and sham groups.

conclusionsRTMS is relatively well tolerated, with some promise for cognitive improvement and global impression in patients with AD. Our findings also indicate the variability between ADAS-cog and MMSE in evaluating global cognitive impairment.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationAlzheimer DiseaseHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30312319
PMCPMC6185837
OpenAlexW2897216524

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.