THE INTERSECTION OF BRAIN SCIENCE & HUMAN POTENTIALPartner with us
neurofeedback.com
The newsletter
← Research & Evidence
Positive with limitationsSystematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions on cognitive improvement in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Several non-drug approaches showed promising scale-specific results. rTMS ranked highest for ADAS-Cog, but rankings do not prove that one option is best for every person.

Cui T, Han X, Yao Q, Xu C, Shan A, Wang X, Li S, Luan H, Wen B, Chen R, Guo J, Lian Q, Li C, Sun Y, Lv S, Wei C.
Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · Publication date: 2026-09-12
Added to site: 2026-09-15
DOI: 10.1177/13872877261485496

First electronic publication date from the authoritative index; the September issue date is less precise.

Modalities
rTMS, tDCS
Clinical focus
Alzheimer's disease, Cognition
Population
People with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease
Sample
50 randomized trials with 2,856 participants
Intervention / method
Eleven non-pharmacological intervention categories evaluated on MMSE, MoCA or ADAS-Cog outcomes
Comparator
Network of direct and indirect comparisons, including usual care

Clinician summary

Dual-task training ranked highest for MMSE and MoCA, with tDCS also favorable. rTMS ranked highest for ADAS-Cog and was the only intervention reported as significantly better than usual care on that outcome.

How to interpret the findings

Network rankings depend on the quality and comparability of included trials. The reviewed abstract did not provide individual protocols, durability, adverse-event synthesis or detailed certainty ratings, and the authors caution interpretation of the rTMS finding.

Equipment and disclosures

Individual devices and stimulation protocols were not available in the reviewed abstract. No BrainMaster equipment attribution.

Funding and conflicts were unavailable in the reviewed abstract.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.

Abstract checked · Checked 2026-09-15

Summary prepared with AI assistance. Source verification does not imply an independent replication or a clinician's endorsement. Read our review method.