Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39320648›Full record

SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025

TMS and tDCS as potential tools for the treatment of cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis.

Andreina Giustiniani, Lorenza Maistrello, Valentina Mologni, Laura Danesin, Francesca Burgio

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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Andreina GiustinianiNeuropsychology Department, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venice, Italy.
Lorenza MaistrelloNeuropsychology Department, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venice, Italy.
Valentina MologniNeuropsychology Department, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venice, Italy.
Laura DanesinNeuropsychology Department, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venice, Italy. laura.danesin@hsancamillo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4777-7605
Francesca BurgioNeuropsychology Department, IRCCS San Camillo Hospital, Via Alberoni 70, 30126, Venice, Italy.

Funding

Ministero della Salute GR-2018-12367927
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCognitive deficits are common nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) could be a potential aid to prevent or delay dementia progression in this clinical population. However, previous studies reported controversial results concerning their efficacy on cognitive symptoms of PD. Hence, the present meta-analysis aims to systematically examine the effects of NIBS as possible treatments for PD cognitive impairments. Understanding NIBS' impact on these symptoms may be of outstanding importance to implement new therapeutic strategies and improve the patients' quality of life.

methodsEMBASE, Scopus, and PubMed databases were systematically searched for consecutive studies published from 2000 to March 2023 describing Randomized Controlled Trials studies evaluating the effect of NIBS on PD cognitive symptoms. From the included studies, data concerning neuropsychological tests were extracted and grouped into six cognitive domains, separately analyzed. Hedge's method was computed as the effect size measure of the extracted data; heterogeneity among studies and publication bias were also assessed. The Cochrane's RoB2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias for each of the included studies.

resultsAfter database searching and screening of texts, sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. No significant results emerged from any investigated cognitive domain when comparing NIBS and sham treatments.

conclusionSeveral factors may have contributed to the lack of effects; among these, methodological choices, the small sample of studies, the high heterogeneity of data and stimulation protocols pose the need for more controlled studies to highlight the potentiality of NIBS as a future treatment for PD cognitive impairments.

Indexed as

Cognitive DysfunctionParkinson DiseaseTranscranial Direct Current StimulationTranscranial Magnetic StimulationHumansCognitive impairmentNon-invasive brain stimulationParkinson’s diseaseTranscranial direct current stimulationTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

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.