ReviewExpert review of medical devices2019
Top 100 cited noninvasive neuromodulation clinical trials.
Review in Expert review of medical devices, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Status and trends in transcranial magnetic stimulation research: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Global trends and hot topics in electrical stimulation of skeletal muscle research over the past decade: A bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Pooled it
- Trends of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation From 2009 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2020Pooled it
- A Comprehensive Review of Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Parameters and Applications in Neurologic and Psychiatric Disorders.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2025Review
- Ethical governance of clinical research on the brain-computer interface for mental disorders: a modified Delphi study.General psychiatry · 2025Article
- Pain and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- The 100 Top-Cited Studies on Neuropsychology: A Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Article
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
Abstract
introductionAREAS COVERED: A de-novo keyword search strategy identified and characterized the 100 most-cited trials. Total citation count for the most cited trials was 13,204. Articles were published between 2008 and 2014 in 50 different journals with a median impact factor of 6.52 (IQR 3.37). Almost half of the top cited papers were investigating mechanisms of action in healthy subjects. Most studies were feasibility trials and only five were pivotal trials, including the ones used for recent FDA approval. Seven articles were interlinked with another article by at least 25 citations and eight authors had collaborated with at least one other author. EXPERT OPINION: Although there has been a significant increase in interest for rTMS and tDCS, most of the cited clinical trials are still small feasibility studies, what reinforced the need for more robust clinical trials (larger samples sizes and effects sizes) to better define clinical effectiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.