Home › Research › Prevention trials
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: clinical experience
Rabey JM, Dobronevsky E.. Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2016-09-08
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common type of dementia among the elderly. Common treatments available and non-pharmacological interventions have their limitations, and new therapeutic approaches are critically needed. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive technique that generates an electric current-inducing modulation in cortical excitability. The previous clinical trials showed that combinations of rTMS and cognitive training (rTMS-COG), as provided by the NeuroAD medical device system, offer a novel, safe, and effective method improving mild-to-moderate AD patients. In this article, we present our experience with rTMS-COG treatment, in clinical settings, of 30 mild-to-moderate AD patients that received rTMS-COG commercial treatments in two clinics for 1-h daily sessions, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks (30 sessions). Five patients returned for a second treatment. ADAS-Cog and MMSE scores were measured pre- and post-treatments. The main analyses were conducted on patients who received 1 treatment (n = 30). Data received from the five returning patients were analyzed separately. The effect of rTMS-COG treatment was statistically significant regarding both ADAS-Cog (-2.4 point improvement, PV <0.001) and MMSE (+1.7 points improvement, PV <0.001) scores. About 80 % of patients gained some cognitive improvement following NeuroAD treatment, with more than 60 % improving by more than two points, for a minimum of 9 months. The Neuronix NeuroAD System was shown to be a safe and effective non-invasive modality for cognitive improvement of Alzheimer patients, with measurable outcomes lasting, in some of them, for up to 1 year, following completion of the 6-week daily intervention course (a carryover effect).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rabey, J. M., & Dobronevsky, E. (2016). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: clinical experience. Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1606-6
Vancouver
Rabey JM, Dobronevsky E. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: clinical experience. Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996). 2016. doi:10.1007/s00702-016-1606-6. PMID: 27631152.
BibTeX
@article{rabey2016-27631152,
author = {Rabey, J. M. and Dobronevsky, E.},
title = {{Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with cognitive training is a safe and effective modality for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: clinical experience}},
journal = {Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1007/s00702-016-1606-6},
pmid = {27631152},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-016-1606-6}
}
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
- The previous clinical trials showed that combinations of rTMS and cognitive training (rTMS-COG), as provided by the NeuroAD medical device system, offer a novel, safe, and effective method improving mild-to-moderate AD patients.
- The effect of rTMS-COG treatment was statistically significant regarding both ADAS-Cog (-2.4 point improvement, PV <0.001) and MMSE (+1.7 points improvement, PV <0.001) scores.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Participants30
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 30 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 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 27631152) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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 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.