| Title |
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in the Elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-018-0866-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ilva G. Iriarte, Mark S. George |
| Abstract |
This article aims to review select applications of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) that have significant relevance in geriatric psychiatry. Small study sizes and parameter variability limit the generalizability of many TMS studies in geriatric patients. Additionally, geriatric patients have unique characteristics that can moderate the efficacy of TMS. Nonetheless, several promising experimental applications in addition to the FDA-approved indication for major depression have emerged. Cognitive impairment, neuropathic pain, and smoking cessation are experimental applications with special significance to the elderly. Cognitive impairment has been researched the most in this population and evidence thus far suggests that TMS has potential therapeutic benefit. There is also evidence to suggest benefit from TMS for neuropathic pain and smoking cessation in working age adults. TMS is consistently reported as a safe and well-tolerated treatment modality with no adverse cognitive side effects. TMS is a safe treatment modality that can be effective for certain applications in the elderly. Additional research that specifically includes older subjects is needed to replicate findings and to optimize treatment protocols for this population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 21 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 18% |
| Psychology | 12 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 41 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2023.
All research outputs
#14,683,641
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#879
of 1,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,057
of 446,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#11
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,708 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.