Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12076483›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression.

J L Martin, M J Barbanoj, T E Schlaepfer, S Clos, V Perez, J Kulisevsky, A Gironell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 130 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2005
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J L MartinIberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Department of Epidemiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Sant Antoni M feminine Claret, 171, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08041. jrodriguezma@hsp.santpau.es
M J Barbanoj
T E Schlaepfer
S Clos
V Perez
J Kulisevsky
A Gironell
Hospital de Sant Pau · ESUniversidad Europea de Madrid · ESUniversity Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscranial magnetic stimulation can either excite or inhibit cortical areas of the brain, depending on whether the speed of the repetitive stimulation is applied at high or low frequencies. It has been used for physiological studies and it has also been proposed as a treatment for depression.

objectivesTo assess the clinical efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating depression. SEARCH STRATEGY: An electronic search was performed including the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Neurosis and Anxiety Review Group trials register (last searched June, 2001), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), PsycLIT (1980-2001), and bibliographies from reviewed articles. Unpublished data and grey literature were searched through personal communications with researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy and safety of transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All reviewers independently extracted the information and verified it by cross-checking. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Continuous data: When similar studies were grouped, the overall standardised mean difference was calculated under a fixed effect model weighted by the inverse variance method with 95% confidence intervals. (In the presence of statistical heterogeneity, a random effects model was to be used.) MAIN

resultsSixteen trials were included in the review and fourteen contained data in a suitable form for quantitative analysis. Most comparisons did not show differences between rTMS and other interventions. No difference was seen between rTMS and sham TMS using the Beck Depression Inventory or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, except for one time period (after two weeks of treatment) for left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and high frequency; and also for right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and low frequency, both in favour of rTMS and both using the Hamilton scale. Comparison of rTMS (left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and high frequency) with electroconvulsive therapy showed no difference except for psychotic patients after two weeks treatment, using the Hamilton scale, which indicated that electroconvulsive therapy was more effective than rTMS. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThe information in this review suggests that there is no strong evidence for benefit from using transcranial magnetic stimulation to treat depression, although the small sample sizes do not exclude the possibility of benefit.

Indexed as

DepressionHumansPhysical StimulationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID12076483
PMCPMC6516872
OpenAlexW1515854428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.