PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) is a prevalent neurodegenerative condition that significantly impacts both individuals and society. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as a treatment for AD by summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs).
UNASSIGNED: SRs/MAs of rTMS for AD were collected by searching Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Sino-Med, and Wanfang databases. The search was conducted from database creation to January 23, 2024. Methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). In addition, the quality of evidence for outcome measures was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
UNASSIGNED: Eight SRs/MAs included in this study met the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 4 of the SRs/MA were classified as low quality, while the remaining 4 were deemed to be of very low quality. The PRISMA analysis revealed that out of the 27 items reporting, 16 achieved full reporting (100%). However, there were still some deficiencies in reporting, particularly related to protocol and registration, search strategy, risk of bias, and additional analysis. The ROBIS tool indicated that only 3 SRs/MAs had a low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment indicated that 6 outcomes were of moderate quality (18.75%), 16 were of low quality (50%), and 10 were classified as very low quality (31.25%).
UNASSIGNED: Based on the evidence collected, rTMS appears to be effective in improving cognitive function in AD patients, although the methodological quality of the SRs/MAs reduces the reliability of the conclusions and the overall quality is low. However, based on the available results, we still support the value of rTMS as an intervention to improve cognitive function in AD. In future studies, it is necessary to confirm the efficacy of rTMS in AD patients and provide more reliable and scientific data to contribute to evidence-based medicine.
UNASSIGNED: SRs/MAs of rTMS for AD were collected by searching Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Sino-Med, and Wanfang databases. The search was conducted from database creation to January 23, 2024. Methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). In addition, the quality of evidence for outcome measures was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
UNASSIGNED: Eight SRs/MAs included in this study met the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 4 of the SRs/MA were classified as low quality, while the remaining 4 were deemed to be of very low quality. The PRISMA analysis revealed that out of the 27 items reporting, 16 achieved full reporting (100%). However, there were still some deficiencies in reporting, particularly related to protocol and registration, search strategy, risk of bias, and additional analysis. The ROBIS tool indicated that only 3 SRs/MAs had a low risk of bias. The GRADE assessment indicated that 6 outcomes were of moderate quality (18.75%), 16 were of low quality (50%), and 10 were classified as very low quality (31.25%).
UNASSIGNED: Based on the evidence collected, rTMS appears to be effective in improving cognitive function in AD patients, although the methodological quality of the SRs/MAs reduces the reliability of the conclusions and the overall quality is low. However, based on the available results, we still support the value of rTMS as an intervention to improve cognitive function in AD. In future studies, it is necessary to confirm the efficacy of rTMS in AD patients and provide more reliable and scientific data to contribute to evidence-based medicine.
摘要：
■阿尔茨海默病（AD）是一种普遍的神经退行性疾病，对个人和社会都产生重大影响。本研究旨在通过总结系统评价（SRs）和荟萃分析（MAs）的证据来评估重复经颅磁刺激（rTMS）作为AD治疗的有效性。
■通过搜索Embase收集AD的rTMS的SRs/MA，WebofScience,科克伦图书馆,PubMed,CNKI,VIP,中医学,和万方数据库。搜索从数据库创建到2024年1月23日进行。方法学质量,报告质量和偏倚风险使用评估方法质量系统评价2（AMSTAR-2），系统评价中的偏差风险（ROBIS）工具和系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）。此外,结果测量的证据质量使用建议分级进行评估，评估,开发和评估（等级）。
■本研究中包含的8个SR/MA符合纳入标准。根据AMSTAR-2，4个SR/MA被归类为低质量，而其余4则被认为质量很低。PRISMA分析显示，在报告的27个项目中，16个实现了完整报告（100%）。然而,报告仍然存在一些缺陷，特别是与协议和注册有关，搜索策略,偏见的风险，和额外的分析。ROBIS工具表明，只有3个SRs/MA具有低偏倚风险。等级评估显示，6项结果质量中等（18.75%），16个质量低(50%)，10人被列为极低质量(31.25%)。
■根据收集的证据，rTMS似乎能有效改善AD患者的认知功能，尽管SRs/MA的方法学质量降低了结论的可靠性，总体质量较低。然而,根据现有的结果，我们仍然支持rTMS作为改善AD认知功能的干预措施的价值。在未来的研究中,有必要确认rTMS在AD患者中的疗效，并提供更可靠和科学的数据，为循证医学做出贡献。
■通过搜索Embase收集AD的rTMS的SRs/MA，WebofScience,科克伦图书馆,PubMed,CNKI,VIP,中医学,和万方数据库。搜索从数据库创建到2024年1月23日进行。方法学质量,报告质量和偏倚风险使用评估方法质量系统评价2（AMSTAR-2），系统评价中的偏差风险（ROBIS）工具和系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）。此外,结果测量的证据质量使用建议分级进行评估，评估,开发和评估（等级）。
■本研究中包含的8个SR/MA符合纳入标准。根据AMSTAR-2，4个SR/MA被归类为低质量，而其余4则被认为质量很低。PRISMA分析显示，在报告的27个项目中，16个实现了完整报告（100%）。然而,报告仍然存在一些缺陷，特别是与协议和注册有关，搜索策略,偏见的风险，和额外的分析。ROBIS工具表明，只有3个SRs/MA具有低偏倚风险。等级评估显示，6项结果质量中等（18.75%），16个质量低(50%)，10人被列为极低质量(31.25%)。
■根据收集的证据，rTMS似乎能有效改善AD患者的认知功能，尽管SRs/MA的方法学质量降低了结论的可靠性，总体质量较低。然而,根据现有的结果，我们仍然支持rTMS作为改善AD认知功能的干预措施的价值。在未来的研究中,有必要确认rTMS在AD患者中的疗效，并提供更可靠和科学的数据，为循证医学做出贡献。
