Top 100 cited noninvasive neuromodulation clinical trials

2019 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1820

A keyword search identified and characterized the 100 most-cited clinical trials using TMS or tDCS (total citations 13,204), published between 2008 and 2014 across 50 journals. Almost half investigated mechanisms of action in healthy subjects; most were feasi…

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typesystematic_review

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Top 100 cited noninvasive neuromodulation clinical trials Lucena MFG, Teixeira PEP, Bonin Pinto C, Fregni F. Top 100 cited noninvasive neuromodulation clinical trials. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019 May 16. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1615440. Abstract Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) are noninvasive neuromodulation techniques used as therapeutic and research tools for several neuropsychiatric conditions. Given the exponential scientific growth of this field we aimed to systematically review the most cited clinical trials using TMS or tDCS. Areas covered: A de-novo keyword search strategy identified and characterized the 100 most-cited trials. Total citation count for the most cited trials was 13,204. Articles were published between 2008 and 2014 in 50 different journals with a median impact factor of 6.52 (IQR 3.37). Almost half of the top cited papers were investigating mechanisms of action in healthy subjects. Most studies were feasibility trials and only 5 were pivotal trials, including the ones used for recent FDA approval. Seven articles were interlinked with another article by at least 25 citations and eight authors had collaborated with at least one other author. Expert Commentary: Although there has been a significant increase in interest for rTMS and tDCS, most of the cited clinical trials are still small feasibility studies, what reinforced the need for more robust clinical trials (larger samples sizes and effects sizes) to better define clinical effectiveness. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typesystematic_review

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample size100

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

citation counts/most-cited trials characterization
trial types (feasibility vs pivotal)
publication characteristics (years, journals, impact factor)
collaboration/citation network characteristics

Limitations

Review focuses on citation metrics and characteristics of highly cited trials rather than synthesizing clinical efficacy outcomes.
Search strategy described as a de-novo keyword search; details of inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk-of-bias assessment are not provided in the abstract.
Restricted to the 100 most-cited trials, which may not represent the full evidence base.

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "systematic_review",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS); transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": 100,
  "outcomes": [
    "citation counts/most-cited trials characterization",
    "trial types (feasibility vs pivotal)",
    "publication characteristics (years, journals, impact factor)",
    "collaboration/citation network characteristics"
  ],
  "main_findings": "A keyword search identified and characterized the 100 most-cited clinical trials using TMS or tDCS (total citations 13,204), published between 2008 and 2014 across 50 journals. Almost half investigated mechanisms of action in healthy subjects; most were feasibility trials and only five were pivotal trials (including those used for recent FDA approval).",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Review focuses on citation metrics and characteristics of highly cited trials rather than synthesizing clinical efficacy outcomes.",
    "Search strategy described as a de-novo keyword search; details of inclusion/exclusion criteria and risk-of-bias assessment are not provided in the abstract.",
    "Restricted to the 100 most-cited trials, which may not represent the full evidence base."
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "tDCS",
    "TMS",
    "rTMS",
    "noninvasive neuromodulation",
    "clinical trials",
    "citation analysis",
    "systematic review"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.15,
      "reason": "Mentions FDA approval context for neuromodulation devices; no EMF guideline focus stated."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2019.1615440
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library