The role of noninvasive brain stimulation for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clicks: 492
ID: 80003
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1 of 38 articles by views in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed at evaluating and comparing the efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques on the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD).An exhaustive literature retrieval was performed on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until October 2019. The primary outcome was the relative changes in BPSD severity scores immediately after NIBS and at the last follow-up visit. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Changes in the severity scores after NIBS were also analyzed with restriction to patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).Ten studies with 324 patients were included, out of which 7 studies involved patients with AD. The analysis results indicated that NIBS significantly improved the BPSD outcome immediately after stimulation (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P = 0.005), but not at the last follow-up visit (0.15; - 0.11-0.41; 0.25). Our subgroup analyses suggested that the favorable effects of rTMS remained significant at the last follow-up visit (0.57; 0.18-0.96; 0.004). This discrepancy maybe caused by the continuously insignificant outcomes of tDCS on the whole data. The results for AD patients immediately after stimulation (0.37; 0.12-0.61; 0.003) and at the last follow-up visit (0.29; - 0.19-0.76; 0.24) were both largely similar to those in the whole patient group with dementia.rTMS, rather than tDCS, was capable of persistently improving the BPSD at an early stage after treatment. More trials are warranted to confirm our results before the establishment of final conclusions.
Reference Key
wang2020theneurological Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Wang, Xin;Mao, Zhiqi;Yu, Xinguang;
Journal Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology
Year 2020
DOI
10.1007/s10072-020-04245-4
URL
Keywords
dementia meta-analysis randomized controlled trial transcranial direct current stimulation transcranial magnetic stimulation behavioral and psychological symptoms

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.