Trial reportThe journal of ECT2019
Crossover to Bilateral Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Potential Strategy When Patients Are Not Responding to Unilateral Left-Sided High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.
Trial report in The journal of ECT, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bilateral rTMS Shows No Advantage in Depression nor in Comorbid Depression and Anxiety: A Naturalistic Study.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2024Article
- Early Improvement Predicts Clinical Outcomes Similarly in 10 Hz rTMS and iTBS Therapy for Depression.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Graph Theory Analysis of the Cortical Functional Network During Sleep in Patients With Depression.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trials using left-sided repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) report remission rates of 14% to 32.6%. A large percentage of patients would not achieve remission with standard rTMS treatment. The question of what clinicians should do when a patient is not responding to standard high-frequency (HF) left-sided rTMS remains unanswered. This prospective case series examines whether crossover to bilateral stimulation enhances antidepressant outcomes in patients not responding to unilateral rTMS. Patients in a major depressive episode received an rTMS clinical protocol of 4 to 6 weeks' duration. Stimulation began with HF rTMS (10 Hz) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (range, 3000-5000 pulses per session). A total of 17 patients without sufficient clinical improvement early in their rTMS course received 1-Hz rTMS (range, 600-1200 pps) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (added to the HF left-sided stimulation). Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores decreased from 13.9 ± 3.9 (mean ± SD) from the start of augmentation to 12.2 ± 5.8 at the end of acute treatment, a 1.7-point change, Cohen d effect size = -0.35, 95% confidence interval, -1.01 to - 0.34, suggesting improvement. Remission rate in this sample was 24% (4/17). This case series indicates that crossover to bilateral stimulation is a feasible and potentially effective strategy when patients are not improving with standard rTMS. A randomized controlled trial comparing crossover versus standard rTMS is needed to determine the efficacy of this paradigm.
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.