Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25590350›Full record

SynthesisBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2015

Bilateral repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Y Q Zhang, D Zhu, X Y Zhou, Y Y Liu, B Qin, G P Ren, P Xie

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Treatment of mixed depression with theta-burst stimulation (TBS): results from a double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
    Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Y Q ZhangDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
D ZhuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
X Y ZhouDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Y Y LiuDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
B QinDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
G P RenDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
P XieDepartment of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNChongqing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been concern regarding the use of controversial paradigms for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to manage treatment-resistant depression (TRD). This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of bilateral rTMS compared with unilateral and sham rTMS in patients with TRD. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EAGLE and NTIS databases were searched to identify relevant studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on bilateral rTMS for TRD patients were included. The response was defined as the primary outcome, and remission was the secondary outcome. Ten RCTs that included 634 patients met the eligibility criteria. The risk ratio (RRs) of both the primary and secondary outcomes of bilateral rTMS showed non-significant increases compared to unilateral rTMS (RR=1.01, P=0.93; odds ratio [OR]=0.77, P=0.22). Notably, the RR of the primary bilateral rTMS outcome was significantly increased compared to that for sham rTMS (RR=3.43, P=0.0004). The results of our analysis demonstrated that bilateral rTMS was significantly more effective than sham rTMS but not unilateral rTMS in patients with TRD. Thus, bilateral rTMS may not be a useful paradigm for patients with TRD.

Indexed as

Depressive Disorder, Treatment-ResistantHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25590350
PMCPMC4381939
OpenAlexW2077401892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.