Efficacy of transcranial alternating current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Ying Tang, Yunhang Wang, Wenyuan Li, Rong Su, Tian Gao, Yuxia Ma
{"title":"Efficacy of transcranial alternating current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Ying Tang, Yunhang Wang, Wenyuan Li, Rong Su, Tian Gao, Yuxia Ma","doi":"10.1007/s10072-026-09406-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has shown potential for improving cognitive function in dementia, but evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of tACS on cognitive function in dementia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched seven databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing tACS effects on cognitive function in dementia. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed study quality. A random-effects model was used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). GRADE was used to rate evidence quality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 9 RCTs involving 357 patients with dementia were included. Compared with sham stimulation, tACS significantly improved immediate global cognition (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI [0.01, 0.54]; p = 0.04, I² = 39%), but not at follow-up. tACS also significantly improved immediate recall, delayed recall, and associative memory. Additionally, tACS significantly enhanced cholinergic transmission as measured by short-latency afferent inhibition (MD = 0.34, p < 0.001, I² = 0%). However, no significant effect was observed for neuropsychiatric symptoms, and the evidence for executive function was inconclusive. No serious adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>tACS may improve immediate global cognition and memory in patients with dementia, but no significant benefit was observed at follow-up or for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Findings are limited by few studies, heterogeneous parameters, and insufficient follow-up data. Future large, well-designed RCTs with standardized protocols are needed to optimize tACS parameters and confirm sustained efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19191,"journal":{"name":"Neurological Sciences","volume":"47 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-026-09406-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) has shown potential for improving cognitive function in dementia, but evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of tACS on cognitive function in dementia.

Methods: We searched seven databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing tACS effects on cognitive function in dementia. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed study quality. A random-effects model was used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). GRADE was used to rate evidence quality.

Results: A total of 9 RCTs involving 357 patients with dementia were included. Compared with sham stimulation, tACS significantly improved immediate global cognition (SMD = 0.28; 95% CI [0.01, 0.54]; p = 0.04, I² = 39%), but not at follow-up. tACS also significantly improved immediate recall, delayed recall, and associative memory. Additionally, tACS significantly enhanced cholinergic transmission as measured by short-latency afferent inhibition (MD = 0.34, p < 0.001, I² = 0%). However, no significant effect was observed for neuropsychiatric symptoms, and the evidence for executive function was inconclusive. No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion: tACS may improve immediate global cognition and memory in patients with dementia, but no significant benefit was observed at follow-up or for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Findings are limited by few studies, heterogeneous parameters, and insufficient follow-up data. Future large, well-designed RCTs with standardized protocols are needed to optimize tACS parameters and confirm sustained efficacy.

经颅交流电刺激对痴呆患者认知功能的影响:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:经颅交流电刺激(tACS)已显示出改善痴呆患者认知功能的潜力,但证据仍不一致。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估tACS对痴呆患者认知功能的疗效。方法:我们检索了7个数据库,随机对照试验(rct)评估tACS对痴呆患者认知功能的影响。两位审稿人独立筛选文献、提取数据并评估研究质量。采用随机效应模型计算95%置信区间(ci)的标准化平均差(SMDs)。GRADE用于评价证据质量。结果:共纳入9项rct,涉及357例痴呆患者。与假性刺激相比,tACS显著改善了即时全局认知(SMD = 0.28; 95% CI [0.01, 0.54]; p = 0.04, I²= 39%),但在随访时无显著改善。tACS还显著改善了即时回忆、延迟回忆和联想记忆。此外,通过短潜伏期传入抑制测量,tACS可显著增强胆碱能传递(MD = 0.34, p)。结论:tACS可改善痴呆患者的即时全局认知和记忆,但在随访或神经精神症状中未观察到显著益处。由于研究较少、参数不一致和随访数据不足,研究结果受到限制。未来需要采用标准化方案的大型、精心设计的随机对照试验来优化tACS参数并确认持续疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurological Sciences
Neurological Sciences 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.00%
发文量
743
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: Neurological Sciences is intended to provide a medium for the communication of results and ideas in the field of neuroscience. The journal welcomes contributions in both the basic and clinical aspects of the neurosciences. The official language of the journal is English. Reports are published in the form of original articles, short communications, editorials, reviews and letters to the editor. Original articles present the results of experimental or clinical studies in the neurosciences, while short communications are succinct reports permitting the rapid publication of novel results. Original contributions may be submitted for the special sections History of Neurology, Health Care and Neurological Digressions - a forum for cultural topics related to the neurosciences. The journal also publishes correspondence book reviews, meeting reports and announcements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书