-
Neurobiology of Aging Feb 2020Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive brain stimulation technique, has emerged as a promising treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive brain stimulation technique, has emerged as a promising treatment for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). Currently, however, the effectiveness of this therapy is unclear because of the low statistical power and heterogeneity of previous trials. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to systematically characterize the effectiveness of various combinations of rTMS parameters on different cognitive domains in patients with MCI and AD. Thirteen studies comprising 293 patients with MCI or AD were included in this analysis. Random-effects analysis revealed an overall medium-to-large effect size (0.77) favoring active rTMS over sham rTMS in the improvement of cognitive functions. Subgroup analyses revealed that (1) high-frequency rTMS over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and low-frequency rTMS at the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex significantly improved memory functions; (2) high-frequency rTMS targeting the right inferior frontal gyrus significantly enhanced executive performance; and (3) the effects of 5-30 consecutive rTMS sessions could last for 4-12 weeks. Potential mechanisms of rTMS effects on cognitive functions are discussed.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Humans; Memory; Prefrontal Cortex; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 31783330
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2019.08.020 -
Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience :... Jan 2021Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) could provide treatment alternatives to stimulant medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), given some evidence for improvements in cognition and clinical symptoms. However, despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS and tDCS are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to critically appraise rTMS and tDCS studies in ADHD to inform good research and clinical practice.
METHODS
A systematic search (up to February 2019) identified 18 studies (rTMS 4, tDCS 14; 311 children and adults with ADHD) stimulating mainly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). We included 12 anodal tDCS studies (232 children and adults with ADHD) in 3 random-effects meta-analyses of cognitive measures of attention, inhibition and processing speed.
RESULTS
The review of rTMS and tDCS showed positive effects in some functions but not others, and little evidence for clinical improvement. The meta-analyses of 1 to 5 sessions of anodal tDCS over mainly the left or bilateral dlPFC showed trend-level improvements in inhibition and processing speed, but not in attention.
LIMITATIONS
Heterogeneity in stimulation parameters, patient age and outcome measures limited the interpretation of findings.
CONCLUSION
The review and meta-analysis showed limited evidence that 1 to 5 sessions of rTMS and tDCS, mostly of the dlPFC, improved clinical or cognitive measures of ADHD. These findings did not support using rTMS or tDCS of the dlPFC as an alternative neurotherapy for ADHD as yet. Larger, multi-session stimulation studies identifying more optimal sites and stimulation parameters in combination with cognitive training could achieve larger effects.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Prefrontal Cortex; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 33009906
DOI: 10.1503/jpn.190179 -
Brain and Behavior Jun 2019Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been evaluated as an effective treatment option for patients with major depressive disorder. However, there are limited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been evaluated as an effective treatment option for patients with major depressive disorder. However, there are limited studies that have evaluated the efficacy of TMS for other neuropsychiatric disorders such as anxiety and trauma-related disorders. We reviewed the literature that has evaluated TMS as a treatment for anxiety and trauma-related disorders.
METHODS
We searched for articles published up to December 2017 in Embase, Medline, and ISI Web of Science databases, following the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles (n = 520) evaluating TMS in anxiety and trauma-related disorders were screened and a small subset of these that met the eligibility criteria (n = 17) were included in the systematic review, of which nine evaluated TMS in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), four in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), two in specific phobia (SP), and two in panic disorder (PD). The meta-analysis was performed with PTSD and GAD since PD and SP had an insufficient number of studies and sample sizes.
RESULTS
Among anxiety and trauma-related disorders, TMS has been most widely studied as a treatment for PTSD. TMS demonstrated large overall treatment effect for both PTSD (ES = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.42, -0.34) and GAD (ES = -2.06, 95% CI: -2.64, -1.48), including applying high frequency over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Since few studies have evaluated TMS for SP and PD, few conclusions can be drawn.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis suggests that TMS may be an effective treatment for GAD and PTSD.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Humans; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31066227
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.1284 -
JAMA Psychiatry Aug 2022Negative symptoms have a detrimental impact on functional outcomes and quality of life in people with schizophrenia, and few therapeutic options are considered effective... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Negative symptoms have a detrimental impact on functional outcomes and quality of life in people with schizophrenia, and few therapeutic options are considered effective for this symptomatic dimension. Studies have suggested that noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) interventions may be effective in treating negative symptoms. However, the comparative efficacy of different NIBS protocols for relieving negative symptoms remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and acceptability of different NIBS interventions for treating negative symptoms.
DATA SOURCES
The ClinicalKey, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science electronic databases were systematically searched from inception through December 7, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
A frequentist model network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the pooled findings of trials that evaluated the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), theta-burst stimulation, transcranial random noise stimulation, transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation on negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining NIBS interventions for participants with schizophrenia were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Data were independently extracted by multiple observers. The pair-wise meta-analytic procedures were conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were changes in the severity of negative symptoms and acceptability (ie, dropout rates owing to any reason). Secondary outcomes were changes in positive and depressive symptoms.
RESULTS
Forty-eight RCTs involving 2211 participants (mean [range] age, 38.7 [24.0-57.0] years; mean [range] proportion of female patients, 30.6% [0%-70.0%]) were included. Compared with sham control interventions, excitatory NIBS strategies (standardized mean difference [SMD]: high-definition transcranial random noise stimulation, -2.19 [95% CI, -3.36 to -1.02]; intermittent theta-burst stimulation, -1.32 [95% CI, -1.88 to -0.76]; anodal transcranial direct current stimulation, -1.28 [95% CI, -2.55 to -0.02]; high-frequency rTMS, -0.43 [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.18]; extreme high-frequency rTMS, -0.45 [95% CI, -0.79 to -0.12]) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with or without other inhibitory stimulation protocols in the contralateral regions of the brain were associated with significantly larger reductions in negative symptoms. Acceptability did not significantly differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this network meta-analysis, excitatory NIBS protocols over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were associated with significantly large improvements in the severity of negative symptoms. Because relatively few studies were available for inclusion, additional well-designed, large-scale RCTs are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Brain; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Schizophrenia; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 35731533
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.1513 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2022Background We evaluated the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and ranked the relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background We evaluated the efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and ranked the relative efficacy of different stimulation protocols. Methods We performed a search for randomised, sham-controlled trials of rTMS for OCD. The primary analysis included both a pairwise meta-analysis and a series of frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) of OCD symptom severity. Secondary analyses were carried out on relevant clinical factors and safety. Results 21 studies involving 662 patients were included. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that rTMS for OCD is efficacious across all protocols (Hedges' g=-0.502 [95%CI= -0.708, -0.296]). The first NMA, with stimulation protocols clustered only by anatomical location, showed that both dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) stimulation and medial frontal cortex stimulation were efficacious. In the second NMA, considering each unique combination of frequency and location separately, low frequency (LF) pre-supplementary motor area (preSMA) stimulation, high frequency (HF) bilateral dlPFC stimulation, and LF right dlPFC stimulation were all efficacious . LF right dlPFC was ranked highest in terms of efficacy, although the corresponding confidence intervals overlapped with the other two protocols. Limitations Evidence base included mostly small studies, with only a few studies using similar protocols, giving a sparse network. Studies were heterogeneous, and a risk of publication bias was found. Conclusions rTMS for OCD was efficacious compared with sham stimulation. LF right dlPFC, HF bilateral dlPFC and LF preSMA stimulation were all efficacious protocols with significant and comparable clinical improvements. Future studies should further investigate the relative merits of these three protocols.
Topics: Humans; Motor Cortex; Network Meta-Analysis; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Prefrontal Cortex; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35041869
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.01.048 -
Psychological Medicine Apr 2020People with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have abnormalities in frontal, temporal, parietal and striato-thalamic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative meta-analyses of brain structural and functional abnormalities during cognitive control in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder.
BACKGROUND
People with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have abnormalities in frontal, temporal, parietal and striato-thalamic networks. It is unclear to what extent these abnormalities are distinctive or shared. This comparative meta-analysis aimed to identify the most consistent disorder-differentiating and shared structural and functional abnormalities.
METHODS
Systematic literature search was conducted for whole-brain voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of cognitive control comparing people with ASD or ADHD with typically developing controls. Regional gray matter volume (GMV) and fMRI abnormalities during cognitive control were compared in the overall sample and in age-, sex- and IQ-matched subgroups with seed-based d mapping meta-analytic methods.
RESULTS
Eighty-six independent VBM (1533 ADHD and 1295 controls; 1445 ASD and 1477 controls) and 60 fMRI datasets (1001 ADHD and 1004 controls; 335 ASD and 353 controls) were identified. The VBM meta-analyses revealed ADHD-differentiating decreased ventromedial orbitofrontal (z = 2.22, p < 0.0001) but ASD-differentiating increased bilateral temporal and right dorsolateral prefrontal GMV (zs ⩾ 1.64, ps ⩽ 0.002). The fMRI meta-analyses of cognitive control revealed ASD-differentiating medial prefrontal underactivation but overactivation in bilateral ventrolateral prefrontal cortices and precuneus (zs ⩾ 1.04, ps ⩽ 0.003). During motor response inhibition specifically, ADHD relative to ASD showed right inferior fronto-striatal underactivation (zs ⩾ 1.14, ps ⩽ 0.003) but shared right anterior insula underactivation.
CONCLUSIONS
People with ADHD and ASD have mostly distinct structural abnormalities, with enlarged fronto-temporal GMV in ASD and reduced orbitofrontal GMV in ADHD; and mostly distinct functional abnormalities, which were more pronounced in ASD.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Brain; Cerebral Cortex; Child; Cognition; Female; Gray Matter; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Parietal Lobe; Thalamus; Young Adult
PubMed: 32216846
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291720000574 -
EClinicalMedicine Oct 2022Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that positively regulates the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's...
BACKGROUND
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that positively regulates the motor and non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Although, most reviews and meta-analysis have shown that rTMS intervention is effective in treating motor symptoms and depression, very few have used randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to analyse the efficacy of this intervention in PD. We aimed to review RCTs of rTMS in patients with PD to assess the efficacy of rTMS on motor and non-motor function in patients with PD.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases for RCTs on rTMS in PD published between January 1, 1988 to January 1, 2022. Eligible studies included sham-controlled RCTs that used rTMS stimulation for motor or non-motor symptoms in PD. RCTs not focusing on the efficacy of rTMS in PD were excluded. Summary data were extracting from those RCTs by two investigators independently. We then calculated standardised mean difference with random-effect models. The main outcome included motor and non-motor examination of scales that were used in PD motor or non-motor assessment. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022329633.
FINDINGS
Fourteen studies with 469 patients met the criteria for our meta-analysis. Twelve eligible studies with 381 patients were pooled to analyse the efficacy of rTMS on motor function improvement. The effect size on motor scale scores was 0.51 ( < 0.0001) and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I = 29%). Five eligible studies with 202 patients were collected to evaluate antidepressant-like effects. The effect size on depression scale scores was 0.42 ( = 0.004), and were not distinctly heterogeneous (I = 25%), indicating a significant anti-depressive effect (P = 0.004). The results suggest that high-frequency of rTMS on primary motor cortex (M1) is effective in improving motor symptoms; while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) may be a potentially effective area in alleviating depressive symptom.
INTERPRETATION
The findings suggest that rTMS could be used as a possible adjuvant therapy for PD mainly to improve motor symptoms, but could have potential efficacy on depressive symptoms of PD. However, further investigation is needed.
FUNDING
The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO: 81873777, 82071414), Initiated Foundation of Zhujiang Hospital (NO: 02020318005), Scientific Research Foundation of Guangzhou (NO: 202206010005), and Science and Technology Program of Guangdong of China (NO: 2020A0505100037).
PubMed: 35923424
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101589 -
Neuropsychopharmacology : Official... Mar 2024While pharmacological, behavioral and psychosocial treatments are available for substance use disorders (SUDs), they are not always effective or well-tolerated.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
While pharmacological, behavioral and psychosocial treatments are available for substance use disorders (SUDs), they are not always effective or well-tolerated. Neuromodulation (NM) methods, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) may address SUDs by targeting addiction neurocircuitry. We evaluated the efficacy of NM to improve behavioral outcomes in SUDs. A systematic literature search was performed on MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and PubMed databases and a list of search terms for four key concepts (SUD, rTMS, tDCS, DBS) was applied. Ninety-four studies were identified that examined the effects of rTMS, tDCS, and DBS on substance use outcomes (e.g., craving, consumption, and relapse) amongst individuals with SUDs including alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, stimulants, and opioids. Meta-analyses were performed for alcohol and tobacco studies using rTMS and tDCS. We found that rTMS reduced substance use and craving, as indicated by medium to large effect sizes (Hedge's g > 0.5). Results were most encouraging when multiple stimulation sessions were applied, and the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) was targeted. tDCS also produced medium effect sizes for drug use and craving, though they were highly variable and less robust than rTMS; right anodal DLPFC stimulation appeared to be most efficacious. DBS studies were typically small, uncontrolled studies, but showed promise in reducing misuse of multiple substances. NM may be promising for the treatment of SUDs. Future studies should determine underlying neural mechanisms of NM, and further evaluate extended treatment durations, accelerated administration protocols and long-term outcomes with biochemical verification of substance use.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Substance-Related Disorders; Behavior, Addictive; Craving; Prefrontal Cortex
PubMed: 38086901
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-023-01776-0 -
Neuropsychopharmacology : Official... Oct 2021Loneliness is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Deeper understanding of neurobiological mechanisms underlying loneliness is needed to identify potential...
Loneliness is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Deeper understanding of neurobiological mechanisms underlying loneliness is needed to identify potential intervention targets. We did not find any systematic review of neurobiology of loneliness. Using MEDLINE and PsycINFO online databases, we conducted a search for peer-reviewed publications examining loneliness and neurobiology. We identified 41 studies (n = 16,771 participants) that had employed various methods including computer tomography (CT), structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional MRI (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and post-mortem brain tissue RNA analysis or pathological analysis. Our synthesis of the published findings shows abnormal structure (gray matter volume or white matter integrity) and/or activity (response to pleasant versus stressful images in social versus nonsocial contexts) in the prefrontal cortex (especially medial and dorsolateral), insula (particularly anterior), amygdala, hippocampus, and posterior superior temporal cortex. The findings related to ventral striatum and cerebellum were mixed. fMRI studies reported links between loneliness and differential activation of attentional networks, visual networks, and default mode network. Loneliness was also related to biological markers associated with Alzheimer's disease (e.g., amyloid and tau burden). Although the published investigations have limitations, this review suggests relationships of loneliness with altered structure and function in specific brain regions and networks. We found a notable overlap in the regions involved in loneliness and compassion, the two personality traits that are inversely correlated in previous studies. We have offered recommendations for future research studies of neurobiology of loneliness.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Brain; Diffusion Tensor Imaging; Humans; Loneliness; Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PubMed: 34230607
DOI: 10.1038/s41386-021-01058-7 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive intervention that holds promise for improving cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD)....
INTRODUCTION
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive intervention that holds promise for improving cognitive function in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the effectiveness of this therapy and the optimal TMS parameters has not reached a consensus. The purpose of the meta-analysis was to systematically discern the effectiveness of different components of TMS protocols on cognitive improvement in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD.
METHODS
The meta-analysis was preregistered on Prospero (registration number: CRD42022345482). PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library databases were used to search, screen and identify eligible studies with the following keywords: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation OR TMS OR theta burst stimulation AND Alzheimer OR Alzheimers OR Alzheimer's OR mild cognitive impairment OR MCI. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of participants with accepted standardized diagnostic criteria were searched by two authors independently. The risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the influential factors.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies and 25 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The findings revealed a significant overall cognition improvement of real stimulation compared with sham stimulation (short-term effects: SMD, 0.91; 95% CI 0.44-1.38; < 0.01; long-lasting effects: SMD, 0.91; 95% CI 0.27-1.55; < 0.01). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and bilateral cerebellums, as well as moderate frequency stimulation (5 Hz and 10 Hz) on mild and moderate cognitive impairment patients, were more effective than other TMS protocols. However, the additional application of cognitive training showed no significant improvement.
CONCLUSION
Cognitive improvement effect of TMS was demonstrated in MCI and AD patients in both short-term assessment and long-lasting outcomes, and the efficiency of TMS is affected by the stimulation frequency, stimulation site, and participant characteristics. Further RCTs are needed to validate the findings of our subgroup analysis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022345482, identifier: CRD42022345482.
PubMed: 37528850
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1209205