Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Precuneus magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial
Koch G, Casula EP, Bonnì S, Borghi I, Assogna M, Minei M, Pellicciari MC, Motta C et al.. Brain : a journal of neurology, 2022-11-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes was selected as the primary outcome measure, in which post-treatment scores were compared to baseline. Our findings show that patients that received precuneus repetitive magnetic stimulation presented a stable performance of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes score, whereas patients treated with sham showed a worsening of their score. Compared with the sham stimulation, patients in the precuneus stimulation group also showed also significantly better performances for the secondary outcome measures, including the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale. Neurophysiological results showed that precuneus cortical excitability remained unchanged after 24 weeks in the precuneus stimulation group, whereas it was significantly reduced in the sham group. Finally, we found an enhancement of local gamma oscillations in the group treated with precuneus stimulation but not in patients treated with sham. We conclude that 24 weeks of precuneus rTMS may slow down cognitive and functional decline in Alzheimer's disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Koch, G., Casula, E. P., Bonnì, S., Borghi, I., Assogna, M., Minei, M., et al. (2022). Precuneus magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Brain : a journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac285
Vancouver
Koch G, Casula EP, Bonnì S, Borghi I, Assogna M, Minei M, et al. Precuneus magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Brain : a journal of neurology. 2022. doi:10.1093/brain/awac285. PMID: 36281767.
BibTeX
@article{koch2022-36281767,
author = {Koch, G. and Casula, E. P. and Bonnì, S. and Borghi, I. and Assogna, M. and Minei, M. and Pellicciari, M. C. and Motta, C. and others},
title = {{Precuneus magnetic stimulation for Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial}},
journal = {Brain : a journal of neurology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1093/brain/awac285},
pmid = {36281767},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awac285}
}
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.
Key findings
- The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes was selected as the primary outcome measure, in which post-treatment scores were compared to baseline.
- Our findings show that patients that received precuneus repetitive magnetic stimulation presented a stable performance of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes score, whereas patients treated with sham showed a worsening of their score.
- Compared with the sham stimulation, patients in the precuneus stimulation group also showed also significantly better performances for the secondary outcome measures, including the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale.
- Neurophysiological results showed that precuneus cortical excitability remained unchanged after 24 weeks in the precuneus stimulation group, whereas it was significantly reduced in the sham group.
- Finally, we found an enhancement of local gamma oscillations in the group treated with precuneus stimulation but not in patients treated with sham.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain : a journal of neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 36281767) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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 Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “precuneus”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “precuneus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.