Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31064328›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2019

Antidepressant outcomes of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with F8-coil and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (DTMS) with H1-coil in major depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Helena M Gellersen, Karina Karolina Kedzior

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

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Helena M GellersenDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Karina Karolina KedziorFaculty of Social Sciences, City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, Germany. Karina-Karolina.De-Santis@hs-bremen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7647-6767
Hochschule Bremen · DEUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe current study aims to systematically assess and compare the antidepressant outcomes of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with the figure-of-eight (F8)-coil and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (DTMS) with the H1-coil in studies matched on stimulation frequency in unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD).

methodsElectronic search of Medline and PsycInfo identified 19 studies with stimulation frequency of 18-20 Hz using F8-coil (k = 8 randomised sham-controlled trials, RCTs, k = 3 open-label; n = 168 patients) or H1-coil (k = 1 RCT, k = 7 open-label; n = 200). Depression severity (the primary outcome) and response/remission rates (the secondary outcomes) were assessed at session 10.

resultsEffects pooled with random-effects meta-analysis showed a large reduction in depression severity, 29% response, and 15% remission rates after 10 sessions of active stimulation with either coil relative to baseline. Reduction in depression severity was greater in studies with younger patients using either coil. The comparison between coils showed a larger reduction in depression severity in H1-coil vs. F8-coil studies (independent of the study design or the concurrent pharmacotherapy) and a trend towards higher remission rates in F8-coil vs. H1-coils studies. These effects are based on a low volume of studies, are not controlled for placebo, and may not be clinically-relevant. The stimulation protocols differed systematically because stimulation was more focal but less intense (80-110% of the resting motor threshold, MT) in the F8-coil studies and less focal but more intense (120% MT) in the H1-coil studies. Two seizures occurred in the H1-coil studies relative to none in the F8-coil studies.

conclusionWhen matched on frequency, the higher-intensity and less focal stimulation with the H1-coil reduces depression more than the lower-intensity and more focal stimulation with the F8-coil. Head-to-head trials should compare the antidepressant outcomes of F8-coil and H1-coil to identify the most optimal stimulation protocols for acute and longer-lasting efficacy.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansLanguageMajor Depressive DisorderMaleResearch DesignRetreatmentTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment OutcomeDeep transcranial magnetic stimulation (DTMS)Figure-of-eight coil (F8-coil)H1-coilMajor depressive disorder (MDD)Meta-analysisRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)

Identifiers

PMID31064328
PMCPMC6505129
OpenAlexW2943929455

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.