ArticleHealth science reports2026
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Alzheimer's Disease Cognitive Impairment: A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials.
Article in Health science reports, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Alzheimer's disease (AD), primarily characterized by cognitive impairment, places an immense burden on patients and caregivers. Non-invasive neuromodulation with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has been proposed to improve cognition in mild to moderate AD. This narrative review aimed to summarize clinical trial evidence on the effects, safety, and tolerability of rTMS for AD-related cognitive impairment and to identify research gaps. Methods: A narrative review of clinical trials was performed. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Google scholar, and Scopus were searched from inception to January 25, 2025, using terms for "repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation", "Alzheimer's disease", "cognitive impairment", "clinical trials", and "randomized controlled trial". Clinical trials of active rTMS versus sham or treatment-as-usual in adults with mild to moderate AD that reported validated cognitive outcomes were included. Data on rTMS protocols, cognitive measures, adverse effects, and follow-up were extracted and synthesized narratively without statistical pooling. Results: 14 trials were included. Across most studies, rTMS delivered at 5-20 Hz for 4 to 12 weeks, at least 5 days per week, was associated with improved cognitive function. Improvements were reported on tools such as the MMSE, CDR-SB, SIB, and ADAS-Cog, with statistically significant differences versus sham in most trials [ Conclusion: rTMS appears safe in the short term and may be linked to short-term cognitive and neuropsychiatric gains in mild to moderate AD. However, marked protocol heterogeneity, small sample sizes, short follow-up, and risk of bias limit certainty and prevent identification of optimal parameters. rTMS is not ready for routine AD care. Larger, sham-controlled trials with standardized protocols and biomarker or long-term outcomes are needed.
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.