Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746519›Full record

ReviewJournal of neurosciences in rural practice

Transcranial direct current stimulation-efficacy in mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis.

G Sandhya, Palash Kumar Malo, Thomas Gregor Issac

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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

3 authors.

G SandhyaCentre for Brain Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.
Palash Kumar MaloCentre for Brain Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1548-6966
Thomas Gregor IssacCentre for Brain Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3148-3466

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a transition state in which individuals have cognitive abilities that are in between those of normal aging and dementia. Although not everyone with MCI develops dementia, the risk of progression to dementia is higher in people with MCI. Interventions at this stage can prevent or delay the onset of dementia. In recent years, studies on non-invasive brain stimulation techniques, namely transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have gained momentum for cognitive enhancement in MCI. Since there are very few studies that also report varied results, it becomes important to analyze the effect of tDCS in MCI. The aim of this study was to systematically review the available evidence about using tDCS for MCI and to assess its efficacy using meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Eight single- or double-blinded randomized controlled trials were included in the study. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) for global cognition; and digit span test forward and backward, trail-making test (TMT) A and B; and logical memory test (LMT) assessing specific cognitive domains were considered. A random-effects model was used wherein the standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results: The effect of the active tDCS (MoCA [SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.22-0.95], MMSE [SMD 0.26, 95% CI 0.25-0.77], TMT-A [SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.42-0.40], and LMT [SMD 0.80, 95% CI -0.24-1.83]) when compared with the sham tDCS was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: The current meta-analysis identified insignificant improvement in cognitive performance with active tDCS treatment as compared to sham tDCS among people with MCI.

Indexed as

CognitionMild cognitive impairmentTranscranial direct current stimulation

Identifiers

PMID38746519
PMCPMC11090525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.