Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30023172›Full record

ReviewNeuroImage. Clinical2018

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: A focus on network mechanisms and state dependence.

Luca Cocchi, Andrew Zalesky, Zoie Nott, Geneviève Whybird, Paul B Fitzgerald, Michael Breakspear

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. What can neuroimaging of neuromodulation reveal about the basis of circuit therapies for psychiatry?Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Luca CocchiQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: luca.cocchi@qimrberghofer.com.au.
Andrew ZaleskyMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Zoie NottQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Geneviève WhybirdQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Paul B FitzgeraldEpworh Clinic Epworth Healthcare, Camberwell, Victoria Australia and the MAPrc, Monash University Central Clinical School and The Alfred, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael BreakspearQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUEpworth Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that has shown promise as an adjunct treatment for the symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Establishing a clear clinical role for TMS in the treatment of OCD is contingent upon evidence of significant efficacy and reliability in reducing symptoms. Objectives: We present the basic principles supporting the effects of TMS on brain activity with a focus on network-based theories of brain function. We discuss the promises and pitfalls of this technique as a means of modulating brain activity and reducing OCD symptoms. Methods: Synthesis of trends and critical perspective on the potential benefits and limitations of TMS interventions in OCD. Findings: Our critical synthesis suggests the need to better quantify the role of TMS in a clinical setting. The context in which the stimulation is performed, the neural principles supporting the effects of local stimulation on brain networks, and the heterogeneity of neuroanatomy are often overlooked in the clinical application of TMS. The lack of consideration of these factors may partly explain the variable efficacy of TMS interventions for OCD symptoms. Conclusions: Results from existing clinical studies and emerging knowledge about the effects of TMS on brain networks are encouraging but also highlight the need for further research into the use of TMS as a means of selectively normalising OCD brain network dynamics and reducing related symptoms. The combination of neuroimaging, computational modelling, and behavioural protocols known to engage brain networks affected by OCD has the potential to improve the precision and therapeutic efficacy of TMS interventions. The efficacy of this multimodal approach remains, however, to be established and its effective translation in clinical contexts presents technical and implementation challenges. Addressing these practical, scientific and technical issues is required to assess whether OCD can take its place alongside major depressive disorder as an indication for the use of TMS.

Indexed as

Multimodal ImagingTranscranial Magnetic StimulationBrainHumansNerve NetObsessive-Compulsive DisorderBrain stimulationConnectivityNeuroimagingObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)TMS

Identifiers

PMID30023172
PMCPMC6047114
OpenAlexW2804251471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.