Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29030111›Full record

Trial reportBrain stimulation

Double-blind, proof-of-concept (POC) trial of Low-Field Magnetic Stimulation (LFMS) augmentation of antidepressant therapy in treatment-resistant depression (TRD).

Maurizio Fava, Marlene P Freeman, Martina Flynn, Bettina B Hoeppner, Richard Shelton, Dan V Iosifescu, James W Murrough, David Mischoulon, Cristina Cusin, Mark Rapaport and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Maurizio FavaMassachusetts General Hospital, United States. Electronic address: mfava@mgh.harvard.edu.
Marlene P FreemanMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Martina FlynnMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Bettina B HoeppnerMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Richard SheltonUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, United States.
Dan V IosifescuIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
James W MurroughIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States.
David MischoulonMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Cristina CusinMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Mark RapaportEmory University, United States.
Boadie W DunlopEmory University, United States.
Madhukar H TrivediUniversity of Texas Southwestern, United States.
Manish JhaUniversity of Texas Southwestern, United States.
Gerard SanacoraYale University, United States.
Gretchen HermesYale University, United States.
George I PapakostasMassachusetts General Hospital, United States.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USEmory University · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USSouthwestern University · USYale University · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100006CNIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100006INIMH NIH HHS HHSN271201100006I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-Field Magnetic Stimulation (LFMS) is a novel, non-invasive, sub-threshold neuromodulation technique, shown in preliminary studies to have immediate mood elevating effects in both unipolar and bipolar depressed patients.

objectiveWe aimed to assess the antidepressant augmentation effects at 48 h of LFMS administered on two consecutive days compared to sham treatment in treatment resistant depression (TRD) subjects, using the Sequential Parallel Comparison Design (SPCD).

methodsEighty-four eligible subjects with TRD were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with LFMS 20 min/day for four days, sham treatment 20 min/day for four days, or sham treatment 20 min/day for 2 days followed by LFMS treatment 20 min/day for two days, using the pre-randomization version of the SPCD (randomization 1:1:1). The SPCD analyses used a repeated measures linear modeling approach with maximum likelihood estimation to use all available data, and using a 60-40 weighting of Stage 1 vs. 2 responses, with the primary outcome being measured after 2 and 4 days.

resultsBoth primary and secondary outcome measures consistently showed no differences between LFMS-treated patients and those treated with sham, with the exception of a slight, non-significantly greater improvement than sham in the visual analogue scale (VAS) sad mood on LFMS-treated patients. LFMS treatment was relatively well tolerated.

conclusionsWe did not observe a significantly greater, rapid efficacy of LFMS compared to sham therapy. Future studies need to examine the possible therapeutic effects of more intensive forms of LFMS, as other forms of neurostimulation typically require longer duration of exposure.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAntidepressive AgentsCombined Modality TherapyDepressive Disorder, Treatment-ResistantDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMagnetic Field TherapyMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAntidepressive AgentsLow-field magnetic stimulationMajor depressive disorder

Identifiers

PMID29030111
PMCPMC5729080
OpenAlexW2759289706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.