Cited by 23Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

Intervention Effect of Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation on Cognitive Functions among People with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Ahorsu, Daniel Kwasi, Adjaottor, Emma Sethina, Lam, Bess Yin Hung·2021·Brain Sciences

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aggregated and examined the treatment effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) (transcranial direct current stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation) on cognitive functions in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). A systematic search was conducted using databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, EMBASE) for studies with keywords related to non-randomized and randomized control trials of NIBS among people with TBI. Nine out of 1790 NIBS studies with 197 TBI participants (103 active vs. 94 sham) that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the present study were finally selected for meta-analysis using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3). Results showed that the overall effect of NIBS on cognition in people with TBI was moderately significant (g = 0.304, 95% CI = 0.055 to 0.553) with very low heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 0.000, Tau = 0.000). Specifically, significant and marginally significant moderate effect sizes were found for cognitive sub-domains including attention, memory, and executive function. The present findings suggest that NIBS is moderately effective in improving cognitive functions among people with TBI. In particular, NIBS may be used as an alternative and/or an adjunct treatment to the traditional approach in rehabilitating cognitive functions in people with TBI.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/brainsci11070840

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is accumulating evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of TMS for sequelae of mTBI and related neuropsychiatric conditions, including depression, cognitive deficits, and chronic pain or headaches.

    “There is accumulating evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of TMS for sequelae of mTBI and related neuropsychiatric conditions, including depression, cognitive deficits, and chronic pain or headaches [23-26].”

    From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction reports that TMS has improved cognitive and psychological problems after TBI, and the Results (section 3.3) find a positive cognitive effect for non-invasive brain stimulation overall. But the meta-analysis combines TMS with tDCS and does not establish a TMS-specific effect; it also does not assess TMS safety or efficacy for depression, chronic pain, or headaches, or restrict its findings to mild TBI. The References list studies on depression and mild-TBI headaches, but their titles alone do not establish those outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • TMS has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of PTSD, chronic pain, cognitive deficits, and headaches in individuals with mTBI.

    “TMS also has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, cognitive deficits, and headaches in individuals with mTBI [23-27].”

    From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction reports that TMS has improved cognitive functions and psychological problems including PTSD in people with TBI. It does not limit those findings to mild TBI, and the paper’s analysis concerns cognition rather than chronic pain or headaches. Although the References list a study of TMS for mild-TBI-related headaches, that citation alone does not establish demonstrated efficacy for headaches. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies show that both TMS and iTBS appear safe and effective when administered to other anatomical sites in individuals with mTBI.

    “as studies show that both TMS and iTBS appear safe and effective when administered to other anatomical sites in individuals with mTBI [23-26].”

    From Frontal Pole Neuromodulation for Impulsivity and Suicidality in Veterans With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Common Co-Occurring Mental Health Conditions: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction (page not available) reports improvements after TMS stimulation of several brain regions in people with TBI. But the paper does not establish that both TMS and iTBS are safe and effective specifically in people with mild TBI; it discusses TBI more broadly and does not identify iTBS as a separately evaluated intervention. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahorsu, D. K., Adjaottor, E. S., & Lam, B. Y. H.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
  • Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (GH)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Lam, Bess Yin Hung
Venue
Brain Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-06-24
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
840
ISSN
2076-3425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3173421182
Cited by
23
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
non-invasive brain stimulation, traumatic brain injury, cognitive function, transcranial direct current stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, attention, memory, executive function, cognitive rehabilitation, sham 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