This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

50/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. Mild cognitive impairment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a powerful tool to probe in vivo brain circuits, as it allows to assess several cortical properties such asexcitability, plasticity and connectivity in humans. In the last 20 years, TMS has been applied to patients with dementia, enabling the identification of potential markers of thepathophysiology and predictors of cognitive decline; moreover, applied repetitively, TMS holds promise as a potential therapeutic intervention. The objective of this paper is to present a comprehensive review of studies that have employed TMS in dementia and to discuss potential clinical applications, from the diagnosis to the treatment. To provide a technical and theoretical framework, we first present an overview of the basic physiological mechanisms of the application of TMS to assess cortical excitability, excitation and inhibition balance, mechanisms of plasticity and cortico-cortical connectivity in the human brain. We then review the insights gained by TMS techniques into the pathophysiology and predictors of progression and response to treatment in dementias, including Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related dementias and secondary dementias. We show that while a single TMS measure offers low specificity, the use of a panel of measures and/or neurophysiological index can support the clinical diagnosis and predict progression. In the last part of the article, we discuss the therapeutic uses of TMS. So far, only repetitive TMS (rTMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and multisite rTMS associated with cognitive training have been shown to be, respectively, possibly (Level C of evidence) and probably (Level B of evidence) effective to improve cognition, apathy, memory, and language in AD patients, especially at a mild/early stage of the disease. The clinical use of this type of treatment warrants the combination of brain imaging techniques and/or electrophysiological tools to elucidate neurobiological effects of neurostimulation and to optimally tailor rTMS treatment protocols in individual patients or specific patient subgroups with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Di Lazzaro, V., Bella, R., Benussi, A., Bologna, M., Borroni, B., Capone, F., et al. (2021). Diagnostic contribution and therapeutic perspectives of transcranial magnetic stimulation in dementia. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2021.05.035

Vancouver

Di Lazzaro V, Bella R, Benussi A, Bologna M, Borroni B, Capone F, et al. Diagnostic contribution and therapeutic perspectives of transcranial magnetic stimulation in dementia. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2021.05.035. PMID: 34482205.

BibTeX

@article{dilazzaro2021-34482205,
  author  = {Di Lazzaro, V. and Bella, R. and Benussi, A. and Bologna, M. and Borroni, B. and Capone, F. and Chen, K. S. and Chen, R. and others},
  title   = {{Diagnostic contribution and therapeutic perspectives of transcranial magnetic stimulation in dementia}},
  journal = {Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.clinph.2021.05.035},
  pmid    = {34482205},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2021.05.035}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

So far, only repetitive TMS (rTMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and multisite rTMS associated with cognitive training have been shown to be, respectively, possibly (Level C of evidence) and probably (Level B of evidence) effective to improve cognition, apathy, memory, and language in AD patients, especially at a mild/early stage of the disease.

Why it matters

This review reports that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and multisite rTMS combined with cognitive training, have shown possible and probable effectiveness for improving cognition, apathy, memory and language in dementia. A single TMS measure has low specificity, but a panel of measures may support diagnosis and predict progression.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 50/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Clinical Neurophysiology: journal h-index 247 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	5 / 7	Cited 154 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	4 / 5	22.0 citations a year over 7 year(s) since 2021
Impact for its field and year	4 / 6	Cited 9.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	3 / 4	Cited 73 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Federico Ranieri: h-index 44 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 38 institution(s) in 13 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34482205)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	50 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 43.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in Mild cognitive impairment from nearby years

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Mild cognitive impairment

See all studies in Mild cognitive impairment →