The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on immediate and long-term cognitive functions in Alzheimer’s dementia and mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are characterized by progressive cognitive decline. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technology, has been widely used to improve cognition in AD and MCI. However, the impact of rTMS on immediate and long-term cognitive functions in AD and MCI, as well as the optimal stimulating parameters, need further clarification. METHOD: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials were included to examine the effects of rTMS on immediate cognition (post-treatment cognition), while nine trials were specifically used to assess its impact on long-term cognition (follow-up cognition). All participants were tested on at least one of the neuropsychological scales of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Section (ADAS-Cog) to evaluate global cognitive outcomes of rTMS. The study followed the guidelines for meta-analysis of intervention studies and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Moderator analysis was used to examine factors that might affect treatment effect. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate stability of results. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the interpretability of heterogeneity. Begg's and Egger's test and funnel plot were applied to assess publication bias. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that rTMS significantly improved immediate cognition (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.22, p < 0.001) and long-term cognition (SMD = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.70, p = 0.004) across all patients (including AD and MCI). Moderator analysis revealed that targeting dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), using intensities of 80% or less of the motor threshold, total time of 800 min or more and stimulation sessions greater than 20 significantly enhanced immediate cognitive performance than their counterparts. In contrast, stimulation frequency, duration/session and patient type showed no significant impact on immediate cognition. For long-term cognition, differences in stimulation protocols had no influence on treatment effect for all patients. CONCLUSION: rTMS had a positive effect on immediate and long-term cognition in AD and MCI, stimulation region, intensity, total time and number of sessions significantly improve immediate cognition. These findings suggest that rTMS has potential as a promising adjunctive treatment for AD and MCI.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Chaimani, A., Atkinson, L. Z., Ogawa, Y., Leucht, S., Ruhe, H. G., Turner, E. H., Higgins, J. P. T., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32802-7 · Cited by 3,541 · see citing works
Müller, M. (2000) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(00)00099-3 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Shang, Y., Wang, X., Shang, X., Zhang, H., Liu, Z., Yin, T., & Zhang, T. (2016) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2016.08.016 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Wang, B., Wang, Y., Yang, F., Han, F., Li, K., Sun, K., & Liang, P.
- Affiliations
- Capital Medical University (CN)
- Capital Normal University (CN)
- Dalian University (CN)
- Shantou University Medical College (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Sun, Kai
- Liang, Peipeng
- Venue
- Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
- Published
- 2025-12-15
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 262-262
- ISSN
- 1743-0003 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12707008
- OpenAlex
- W4417328562
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9
- FWCI
- 0.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Key Project of Medical and health technology of Longgang District, Shenzhen (LGKCYLWS2022034)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, Alzheimer's dementia, mild cognitive impairment, cognitive function, long-term cognitive outcomes, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, stimulation parameters, motor threshold, adjunctive therapy, cognitive decline, stimulation frequency, stimulation duration, stimulation intensity, publication bias, risk of bias, neuropsychological assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Cognition, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Cognitive Dysfunction
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