Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34690114›Full record

ReviewClinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology2021

Role of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Management of Alzheimer's Disease: A Meta-analysis of Effects, Adherence and Adverse Effects.

Vrinda Saxena, Arghya Pal

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical psychopharmacology and neuroscience : the official scientific journal of the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vrinda SaxenaDepartment of Psychiatry, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Rama Himalayan University, Dehradun, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2497-6564
Arghya PalDepartment of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5887-1971
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INSwami Rama Himalayan University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a form of novel brain stimulating method that has attracted interest owing to its relative inexpensiveness and ease of administration. It has been evaluated in many studies for its effectiveness in improving cognitive symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, our understanding regarding its efficacy and the most effective way of administering tDCS (in terms of lead placement to achieve response and prevent harmful consequences) is still evolving. The current meta-analysis was conducted to resolve the above issues. A search using appropriate keywords and medical subject headings was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and DOAJ database. Studies were analysed on pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally 11 studies were included for quantitative analysis from 1,021 obtained from initial search. All the studies included were methodologically of high quality, though an asymmetrical funnel plot raised the possibility of publication bias. tDCS was found to significantly improve the scores on cognition as compared to sham. Anodal tDCS was found to be significantly beneficial in this regards, whereas cathodal and dual stimulation were not. There were no significant difference in the number of drop-outs and adverse reaction in tDCS and sham group. The quality of evidence that we have reviewed in this study is robust. tDCS, particularly anodal tDCS is an effective treatment modality in AD. It is well tolerated in patients with AD. However, further studies are warranted to probe the role of tDCS in other domains of AD.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseaseBrain stimulationMajor neurocognitive disorderMeta-analysisTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34690114
PMCPMC8553534
OpenAlexW3211332560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.