Trial reportEuropean archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience2013
Individualized rTMS neuronavigated according to regional brain metabolism ((18)FGD PET) has better treatment effects on auditory hallucinations than standard positioning of rTMS: a double-blind, sham-controlled study.
Trial report in European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2025Pooled it
- Accelerated neurostimulation protocols for auditory hallucinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Repetitive Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Modulate Cognitive Functions in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review of Primary and Secondary Outcomes.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2016Pooled it
- Brain-imaging studies of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a systematic review.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2016Pooled it
- Placebo Response in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Trials of Treatment of Auditory Hallucinations in Schizophrenia: A Meta-Analysis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2016Pooled it
- Neuroimaging findings in treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review: Lack of neuroimaging correlates of treatment-resistant schizophrenia.Schizophrenia research · 2015Pooled it
- Targeting auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia: effective connectivity changes induced by low-frequency rTMS.Translational psychiatry · 2024Trial
- High-Frequency Neuronavigated rTMS in Auditory Verbal Hallucinations: A Pilot Double-Blind Controlled Study in Patients With Schizophrenia.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Towards causal mechanisms of consciousness through focused transcranial brain stimulation.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2023Review
- Association of cortical thickness and cognition with schizophrenia treatment resistance.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2023Article
- The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for negative symptoms in schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Targeting the pathological network: Feasibility of network-based optimization of transcranial magnetic stimulation coil placement for treatment of psychiatric disorders.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Distinguishing Between Treatment-Resistant and Non-Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia Using Regional Homogeneity.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- Non-invasive Brain Stimulation and Auditory Verbal Hallucinations: New Techniques and Future Directions.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2015Review
- Impact of lifestyle in severe psychiatric disorders and brain morphology.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (LF-rTMS) of the left temporo-parietal cortex (LTPC) has been proposed as a useful therapeutic method for auditory hallucinations (AHs). Stereotactic neuronavigation enables the magnetic coil to be targeted according to the individual parameters obtained from neuroimaging. Individualized rTMS neuronavigated according to 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)FDG PET) allows us to focus the coil explicitly on a given area with detected maxima of specific abnormalities, thus presuming a higher therapeutic effect of the method. The objective of this study is to test clinical efficacy of neuronavigated LF-rTMS administered according to the local maxima of (18)FDG PET uptake of LTPC and to compare it with treatment effects of standard and sham rTMS. In a double-blind, sham-controlled design, patients with AHs underwent a 10-day series of LF-rTMS using (1) (18)FDG PET-guided "neuronavigation," (2) "standard" anatomically guided positioning, and (3) sham coil. The effect of different rTMS conditions was assessed by the Auditory Hallucinations Rating Scale (AHRS) and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Fifteen patients were randomized to a treatment sequence and ten of them completed all three treatment conditions. The intention-to-treat analysis of AHRS score change revealed superiority of the (18)FDG PET-guided rTMS over both the standard and the sham rTMS. The analyses of the PANSS scores failed to detect significant difference among the treatments. Our data showed acute efficacy of (18)FDG PET-guided rTMS in the treatment of AHs. Neuronavigated rTMS was found to be more effective than standard, anatomically guided rTMS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.