Home › Research › Prevention trials
Is non-invasive brain stimulation effective for cognitive enhancement in Alzheimer's disease? An updated meta-analysis
Šimko P, Kent JA, Rektorova I.. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022-09-28
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Objective Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) and its preclinical stage, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), are critical issues confronting the aging society. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have the potential to be effective tools for enhancing cognitive functioning. The main objective of our meta-analysis was to quantify and update the status of the efficacy of repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) when applied in AD and MCI. Methods The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science according to PRISMA statement. Results Pooled effect sizes (Hedges' g) from 32 studies were analyzed using random effect models. We found both, rTMS and tDCS to have significant immediate cognition-enhancing effect in AD with rTMS inducing also beneficial long-term effects. We found no evidence for synergistic effect of cognitive training with NIBS. Conclusions In AD a clinical recommendation can be made for NEURO-AD TM system and for high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) as probably effective protocols (B-level of evidence) and for anodal tDCS over the left DLPFC as a possibly effective. Significance According to scientific literature, NIBS may be an effective method for improving cognition in AD and possibly in MCI.
Key findings
- Results Pooled effect sizes (Hedges' g) from 32 studies were analyzed using random effect models.
- We found both, rTMS and tDCS to have significant immediate cognition-enhancing effect in AD with rTMS inducing also beneficial long-term effects.
- We found no evidence for synergistic effect of cognitive training with NIBS.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| 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 | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — 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) |
| 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 36215904) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Šimko, P., Kent, J. A., & Rektorova, I. (2022). Is non-invasive brain stimulation effective for cognitive enhancement in Alzheimer's disease? An updated meta-analysis. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2022.09.010
Vancouver
Šimko P, Kent JA, Rektorova I. Is non-invasive brain stimulation effective for cognitive enhancement in Alzheimer's disease? An updated meta-analysis. Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2022.09.010. PMID: 36215904.
BibTeX
@article{simko2022-36215904,
author = {Šimko, P. and Kent, J. A. and Rektorova, I.},
title = {{Is non-invasive brain stimulation effective for cognitive enhancement in Alzheimer's disease? An updated meta-analysis}},
journal = {Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1016/j.clinph.2022.09.010},
pmid = {36215904},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2022.09.010}
}
Related studies in Prevention trials
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.