SynthesisFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Comparative efficacy of neuromodulation techniques for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neuromodulation techniques (NMTs) have shown potential therapeutic value in Alzheimer's disease (AD), but the comparative efficacy of different modalities remains unclear. This study aimed to systematically compare and rank available NMTs to identify their relative benefits across cognitive, functional, and neuropsychiatric outcomes. Objective: To evaluate and rank the efficacy of NMTs in improving cognitive function, activities of daily living (ADLs), and neuropsychiatric symptoms in AD patients, thereby providing evidence-based guidance for clinical intervention strategies. Methods: English-language literature was systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE from database inception to February 2026. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AD patients aged ≥18 years. Interventions included repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), photobiomodulation (PBM), transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES), transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS), transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and sham stimulation (Sham). Outcome measures included Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Alzheimer' s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), Alzheimer' s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), Boston Naming Test (BNT), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment followed Cochrane guidelines. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in Stata 17.0, with effect sizes ranked by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: A total of 36 RCTs involving 1,445 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with Sham, TPS significantly improved MMSE (MD = 3.92, 95% CI: 1.57 to 6.35; SUCRA = 97.50%), MoCA (MD = 4.99, 95% CI: 2.26 to 7.72; SUCRA = 69.25%), and BNT scores (MD = 4.02, 95% CI: 1.81 to 6.23; SUCRA = 81.8%). rTMS also showed favorable effects on ADAS-Cog scores (MD = -11.10, 95% CI: -14.51 to -7.71; SUCRA = 91.00%). Regarding activities of daily living, TES ranked highest on the ADCS-ADL scale (SUCRA = 71.00%). In terms of neuropsychiatric symptoms, TPS achieved the highest ranking for improving NPI scores (SUCRA = 92.3%), whereas tACS showed the best performance on GDS scores (SUCRA = 69.5%). Conclusion: Neuromodulation interventions demonstrated domain-specific benefits in AD, with no single approach showing universal superiority. TPS demonstrated the greatest potential for improving global cognitive outcomes, while rTMS showed advantages in ADAS-Cog performance. Nevertheless, limited sample sizes, heterogeneous stimulation protocols, and insufficient long-term evidence restrict the generalizability of current findings. Future multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols and prolonged follow-up are needed to confirm these results and guide clinical implementation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD420261364193.
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.