SynthesisFrontiers in neurology2026
Non-invasive brain stimulation for cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is a frequent and disabling consequence of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS), including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has been investigated as a potential adjunctive intervention, but review-level conclusions remain inconsistent. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of published systematic reviews evaluating NIBS for cognitive outcomes after TBI. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched from inception to May 2026. The unit of analysis was the systematic review, not individual primary trials. Eligible reviews assessed rTMS, tDCS, or both, and reported cognitive outcomes. Methodological quality was reappraised using AMSTAR-2, and primary-study overlap was assessed from the existing review-by-study citation matrix using corrected covered area (CCA). Where reviews reported quantitative estimates for cognition, these estimates were summarized descriptively at the review level; no Results: Twenty-nine records were identified. Ten review records were included, consisting of seven core evidence reviews and three supplementary reviews. Eight reviews directly addressed cognitive outcomes, while supplementary reviews provided contextual review-level evidence. Conservative AMSTAR-2 reassessment found no high- or moderate-quality reviews; two were rated low and eight critically low in the complete 10-record assessment. The citation matrix contained 42 unique primary studies and 92 primary-study occurrences across 10 review records, yielding a CCA of 13.23%, consistent with high overlap. Previously published quantitative review-level estimates showed inconsistent directions of evidence and did not demonstrate consistent evidence of an overall cognitive benefit. Conclusion: Current review-level evidence does not demonstrate consistent evidence of an overall cognitive benefit of NIBS after TBI. Because available reviews are methodologically limited and clinically heterogeneous, routine use of NIBS for post-TBI cognitive rehabilitation is not supported outside research or carefully selected clinical contexts.
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.