| Title |
A systematic review of the effects of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on cognition
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neural Transmission, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00702-016-1592-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia Lage, Katherine Wiles, Sukhwinder S. Shergill, Derek K. Tracy |
| Abstract |
rTMS is increasingly used for a variety of neuropsychiatric conditions. There are data to support 'fast' rTMS (≥10 Hz) having some positive effects on cognitive functioning, but a dearth of research looking at any such effects of 'slow' rTMS. This question is important as cognitive dysfunction accompanies many neuropsychiatric conditions and neuromodulation that potentially enhances or hinders such functioning has important clinical consequences. To determine cognitive effects of slow (≤1 Hz) rTMS, a systematic review of randomized control trials assayed cognition in neurological, psychiatric, and healthy volunteer ≤1 Hz rTMS paradigms. Both active (fast rTMS) and placebo comparators were included. 497 Records were initially obtained; 20 met inclusion criteria for evaluation. Four major categories emerged: mood disorders; psychotic disorders; cerebrovascular accidents; and 'other' (PTSD, OCD, epilepsy, anxiety, and tinnitus). Cognitive effects were measured across several domains: attention, executive functioning, learning, and psychomotor speed. Variability of study paradigms and reporting precluded meta-analytical analysis. No statistically significant improvement or deterioration was consistently found in any cognitive domain or illness category. These data support the overall safety of rTMS in not adversely affecting cognitive functioning. There are some data indicating that rTMS might have cognitive enhancing potential, but these are too limited at this time to make any firm conclusions, and the literature is marked by considerable heterogeneity in study parameters that hinder interpretation. Greater consensus is required in future studies in cognitive markers, and particularly in reporting of protocols. Future work should evaluate the effects of rTMS on cognitive training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 259 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 12% |
| Researcher | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 17% |
| Unknown | 89 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 45 | 17% |
| Psychology | 41 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Unknown | 102 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,378,457
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neural Transmission
#1,185
of 1,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,121
of 365,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neural Transmission
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 365,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.