Home › Research › Treatments
Focused and unfocused transcranial ultrasound stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abdellatif AI, Elsharab A, Moubarak ES, Alsaadany KR, Ayad YW.. Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2026-04-15
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Three RCTs (N=84) were included. Pooled analysis showed that TUS did not significantly improve global cognition compared with sham (SMD=0.31, p=0.54). However,subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between modalities (p=0.047):unfocused LIPUS had a larger effect size (SMD=0.73) than focused TPS (SMD=0.17).Notably, significant cognitive improvement was observed in patients <70 years. Active treatment showed higher disease stabilization rates ("responders"), reduced depressive symptoms (specifically TPS, p=0.008), and improved cerebral perfusion without amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). While pooled analyses did not show a global cognitive benefit, the results favoured unfocused LIPUS over focused TPS; TUS had an excellent safety profile and higher disease stabilization rates; the potential benefits in younger populations and the biological effects suggest that TUS is a promising adjunct that should be further optimized for stimulation. REGISTRATION: This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251276660).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Abdellatif, A. I., Elsharab, A., Moubarak, E. S., Alsaadany, K. R., & Ayad, Y. W. (2026). Focused and unfocused transcranial ultrasound stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-026-08997-3
Vancouver
Abdellatif AI, Elsharab A, Moubarak ES, Alsaadany KR, Ayad YW. Focused and unfocused transcranial ultrasound stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2026. doi:10.1007/s10072-026-08997-3. PMID: 41981348.
BibTeX
@article{abdellatif2026-41981348,
author = {Abdellatif, A. I. and Elsharab, A. and Moubarak, E. S. and Alsaadany, K. R. and Ayad, Y. W.},
title = {{Focused and unfocused transcranial ultrasound stimulation in Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials}},
journal = {Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1007/s10072-026-08997-3},
pmid = {41981348},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-026-08997-3}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Pooled analysis showed that TUS did not significantly improve global cognition compared with sham (SMD=0.31, p=0.54).
- However,subgroup analysis showed a significant difference between modalities (p=0.047):unfocused LIPUS had a larger effect size (SMD=0.73) than focused TPS (SMD=0.17).Notably, significant cognitive improvement was observed in patients <70 years.
- Active treatment showed higher disease stabilization rates ("responders"), reduced depressive symptoms (specifically TPS, p=0.008), and improved cerebral perfusion without amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA).
- While pooled analyses did not show a global cognitive benefit, the results favoured unfocused LIPUS over focused TPS; TUS had an excellent safety profile and higher disease stabilization rates; the potential benefits in younger populations and the biological effects suggest that TUS is a promising adjunct that should be further optimized for stimulation.
- REGISTRATION: This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251276660).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants84
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 78/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 84 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41981348) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 45 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100. |
| Total | 78 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “meta-analysis”
11 studies in the library carry the topic tag “meta-analysis”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 11 tagged studies.