95% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article
Front. Aging Neurosci.
Sec. Neurocognitive Aging and Behavior
Volume 17 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2025.1536573
Comparative efficacy of rTMS on Different Targets in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Provisionally accepted- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is emerging as a promising non-invasive intervention for Alzheimer's disease (AD), yet therapeutic outcomes remain inconsistent across studies. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the cognitive benefits of rTMS in AD patients, with a specific focus on stimulation targets and protocols variations.: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for relevant English-language studies published up to May 31, 2024. Cognitive outcomes were assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Section (ADAS-Cog). Data were pooled using a randomeffects model, with standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the effects of stimulation targets, protocol variations and population demographics on rTMS effecicacy.Results: Twenty-two studies involving 874 participants were included in this meta-analysis.Overall, rTMS significantly improved cognitive function (SMD = 0.27; 95% CI = 0.14-0.41; p < 0.0001), showing that the efficacy of rTMS varied by stimulation target and protocol. Stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) led to significant cognitive improvement (SMD=0.49, 95% CI=-0.26-0.73; p<0.0001), whereas bilateral DLPFC stimulation showed no significant improvement (SMD=0.13; 95% CI=-0.40-0.66; p=0.62). Stimulating the parietal lobe or associated regions produced moderate cognitive benefits (SMD=0.29; 95% CI = 0.03-0.55; p=0.03). Notably, multi-target stimulation over the bilateral DLPFC, parietal lobes, Wernicke's area, and Broca's area also showed substantial cognitive improvement (MD=2.85; 95% CI=1.69-4.00; p＜0.00001). Additionally, subgroup analysis based on geographical background revealed greater effects in studies conducted in Asia (SMD=0.40, 95% CI=0.14 to 0.65; p<0.003).Conclusions: rTMS is an effective intervention for cognitive enhancement in AD, with its efficacy significantly influenced by stimulation target and protocol. Notably, the greater cognitive benefits observed in Asian populations suggest a potential role of genetic and demographic factors that warrant further investigation. These findings contribute to the development of optimized, personalized rTMS protocols for AD treatment.
Keywords: repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, Alzheimer's disease, Cognitive Function, Stimulation targets, Meta-analysis
Received: 29 Nov 2024; Accepted: 31 Mar 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zhang, Dong, Yang, Guo, Zhao, Zhu, Liu and Liu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Dongxu Liu, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Peng Liu, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.