Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26634828›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Clinical outcomes and neural correlates of 20 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (the TIARA study): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

Savani Bartholdy, Jessica McClelland, Maria Kekic, Owen G O'Daly, Iain C Campbell, Jessica Werthmann, Samantha J Rennalls, Katya Rubia, Anthony S David, Danielle Glennon and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. rTMS Therapy for Eating Disorders: Scoping Review on Efficacy, Safety, Stimulation Parameters and Study Subjects.European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Contemporary views on the genetics of anorexia nervosa.European neuropsychopharmacology : the journal of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2016
    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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Savani BartholdySection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. savani.bartholdy@kcl.ac.uk.
Jessica McClellandSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. jessica.mcclelland@kcl.ac.uk.
Maria KekicSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. maria.kekic@kcl.ac.uk.
Owen G O'DalyCentre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. o.o'daly@kcl.ac.uk.
Iain C CampbellSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. iain.campbell@kcl.ac.uk.
Jessica WerthmannSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. jessica.werthmann@kcl.ac.uk.
Samantha J RennallsCentre for Neuroimaging Sciences, Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. samantha.rennalls@kcl.ac.uk.
Katya RubiaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. katya.rubia@kcl.ac.uk.
Anthony S DavidDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. anthony.david@kcl.ac.uk.
Danielle GlennonSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. danielle.glennon@slam.nhs.uk.
Nikola KernSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. nikola.kern@slam.nhs.uk.
Ulrike SchmidtSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. ulrike.schmidt@kcl.ac.uk.
King's College London · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1013-32049Medical Research Council G0300155Medical Research Council MR/J004162/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious mental disorder with multiple comorbidities and complications. In those with a severe and enduring form of the illness (SEED-AN), treatment responsivity is poor and the evidence base limited. Thus, there is a need for novel treatment strategies. This paper describes the theoretical background and protocol of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of real versus sham (placebo) therapeutic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in SEED-AN. The aim of this trial is to obtain information that will guide decision making and protocol development in relation to a future large-scale RCT of rTMS in this group of patients, and also to assess the preliminary efficacy and neural correlates of rTMS treatment.

designForty-four adults from the community with a DSM-5 diagnosis of AN, an illness duration>3 years and a previous course of unsuccessful treatment will be randomly allocated to receive 20 sessions of either real or sham rTMS, in a parallel group design. As this is a feasibility study, no primary outcome has been defined and a broad range of outcome variables will be examined. These include weight/body mass index (BMI), eating disorder psychopathology, other psychopathology (for example, depression, anxiety), quality of life, neuropsychological processes (such as self-regulation, attentional bias and food choice behaviour), neuroimaging measures (that is, changes in brain structure or function), tolerability and acceptability of rTMS, and additional service utilisation. The feasibility of conducting a large-scale RCT of rTMS and the appropriateness of rTMS as a treatment for SEED-AN will be evaluated through: assessment of recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of random allocation, blinding success (allocation concealment), completion of treatment sessions and research assessments (baseline, post-treatment and follow-up assessments). The acceptability and tolerability of the treatment will be assessed via semi-structured interviews. DISCUSSION: The effect sizes generated and other findings from this trial will inform a future large-scale RCT with respect to decisions on primary outcome measures and other aspects of protocol development. Additionally, results from this study will provide a preliminary indication of the efficacy of rTMS treatment for AN, the neural correlates of the illness, and potential biomarkers of clinical response.

trial registrationISRCTN14329415 . Date of registration: 23 July 2015.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorTranscranial Direct Current StimulationAnorexia NervosaBody Mass IndexBrainClinical ProtocolsDouble-Blind MethodFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLondonMaleNeuroimagingPatient SatisfactionPsychiatric Status Rating Scales

Identifiers

PMID26634828
PMCPMC4668644
OpenAlexW2187217643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.