ArticleBMJ open2026
Protocol for a living systematic review of randomised controlled trials on the clinical efficacy of transcranial pulse stimulation in neurological and psychiatric conditions.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranscranial pulse stimulation (TPS) is a novel technology with therapeutic promise for Alzheimer's disease. Given its novelty and the rapidly evolving research in neurology and mental health using this technology, large randomised controlled trials are expected. Therefore, an independent and up-to-date synthesis of the available evidence is needed. In our effort to create a living systematic review of the clinical efficacy of TPS across various conditions, we aim to describe its methodology to ensure its transparency and scientific rigour. This protocol details the predefined methods related to search frequencies, updates to the review and quantitative synthesis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will only include randomised controlled trials involving clinically diagnosed populations and comparing active TPS to sham TPS. We will search MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Web of Science, as well as trial registries and grey literature. The principal searches in databases and trial registries will be rerun monthly, and new evidence will be integrated. Study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessments will be performed independently and in duplicate. All relevant clinical outcomes measured with validated psychometric scales and tests will be collected. The relevance of a quantitative synthesis, the studies to be included in pairwise meta-analysis, appropriate scales, questionnaires and time points will be discussed by the research team annually. If a meta-analysis is conducted, we will use the standardised mean difference as the measure of effect size. We will assess our confidence in the cumulative evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will collect existing data without generating new datasets. Therefore, ethics approval or consent to participate is not required.We will publish our initial systematic review when a total of four randomised controlled trials across different health conditions using active TPS compared with sham TPS are available. At this stage of our project, we anticipate updating the living systematic review annually following the publication of the baseline review. We will conclude the living phase of the review when high certainty of evidence is achieved or if the topic loses its relevance. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42024595947.
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.