A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of intermittent Theta burst stimulation (iTBS) on cognitive enhancement
Abstract
Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) has been used to focally regulate excitability of neural cortex over the past decade - however there is little consensus on the generalizability of effects reported in individual studies. Many studies use small sample sizes (N < 30), and there is a considerable amount of methodological heterogeneity in application of the stimulation itself. This systematic meta-analysis aims to consolidate the extant literature and determine if up-regulatory theta-burst stimulation reliably enhances cognition through measurable behavior. Results show that iTBS - when compared to suitable control conditions - may enhance cognition when outlier studies are removed, but also that there is a significant amount of heterogeneity across studies. Significant contributors to between-study heterogeneity include location of stimulation and method of navigation to the stimulation site. Surprisingly, the type of cognitive domain investigated was not a significant contributor of heterogeneity. The findings of this meta-analysis demonstrate that standardization of iTBS is urgent and necessary to determine if neuroenhancement of particular cognitive faculties are reliable and robust, and measurable through observable behavior.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
iTBS has shown promise in enhancing cognition in healthy adults.
“iTBS has shown promise in enhancing cognition in healthy adults [26]”
From A phase I trial of accelerated intermittent theta burst rTMS for amnestic MCI (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 100 · Cited by 68
- Authors
- Pabst, A., Proksch, S., Médé, B., Comstock, D. C., Ross, J. M., & Balasubramaniam, R.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Merced (US)
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pabst, Alexandria
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-04
- Volume
- 135
- Pages
- 104587
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4213143600
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 1.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
- Keywords
- intermittent theta burst stimulation, cognitive enhancement, non-invasive brain stimulation, cortical excitability, study heterogeneity, cognitive domain
- MeSH terms
- Cerebral Cortex, Cognition, Humans, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review