Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31925612›Full record

SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2020

The role of noninvasive brain stimulation for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xin Wang, Zhiqi Mao, Xinguang Yu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Static magnetic stimulation in the central nervous system: a systematic review.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xin WangSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China.
Zhiqi MaoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xinguang YuSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, China. xinguang_yu301@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6585-6529
Nankai University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases NCRCG-PLAGH-2018006National Natural Science Foundation of China 8187052509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed at evaluating and comparing the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques on the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD).

methodsAn exhaustive literature retrieval was performed on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until October 2019. The primary outcome was the relative changes in BPSD severity scores immediately after NIBS and at the last follow-up visit. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Changes in the severity scores after NIBS were also analyzed with restriction to patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

resultsTen studies with 324 patients were included, out of which 7 studies involved patients with AD. The analysis results indicated that NIBS significantly improved the BPSD outcome immediately after stimulation (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P = 0.005), but not at the last follow-up visit (0.15; - 0.11-0.41; 0.25). Our subgroup analyses suggested that the favorable effects of rTMS remained significant at the last follow-up visit (0.57; 0.18-0.96; 0.004). This discrepancy maybe caused by the continuously insignificant outcomes of tDCS on the whole data. The results for AD patients immediately after stimulation (0.37; 0.12-0.61; 0.003) and at the last follow-up visit (0.29; - 0.19-0.76; 0.24) were both largely similar to those in the whole patient group with dementia.

conclusionsrTMS, rather than tDCS, was capable of persistently improving the BPSD at an early stage after treatment. More trials are warranted to confirm our results before the establishment of final conclusions.

Indexed as

Transcranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrainDementiaHumansTreatment OutcomeBehavioral and psychological symptomsDementiaMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTranscranial direct current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31925612
OpenAlexW3000726352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.