Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673675›Full record

ArticleGeneral psychiatry2019

Efficacy and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for generalised anxiety disorder: A meta-analysis.

Huiru Cui, Lijuan Jiang, Yanyan Wei, Wei Li, Hui Li, Junjuan Zhu, Jiaoyan Pang, Jijun Wang, Chunbo Li

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in General psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Huiru Cui *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Lijuan Jiang *Shanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yanyan WeiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wei LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hui LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Junjuan ZhuShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jiaoyan PangSchool of government, Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, China.
Jijun WangShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Chunbo LiShanghai Key Laboratory of Psychotic Disorders, Shanghai Mental Health Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai University of Political Science and Law · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPharmacological and conventional non-pharmacological treatments are only moderately effective in treating generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has attracted interest because of its potential therapeutic value.

aimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of rTMS treatment for GAD.

methodsLiterature studies published in English or Chinese were screened in 10 electronic databases up to 5 December 2018. The included studies' bias risk was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Meta-analysis was performed to compute the standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) along with its 95% CIs through using RevMan V.5.3. Heterogeneity was inspected by I

resultsTwenty-one studies, with a total sample size of 1481, were analysed. The risk of bias in most studies included is moderate, the majority of which are lacking of blinding methods of treatment allocation. The treatment had beneficial effects in the rTMS group compared with the control group in mean anxiety score (SMD=-0.68; 95% CI -0.89 to -0.46). None of the 21 studies included here reported severe adverse events. As for dropout rates, there are no statistically significant differences between the two groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.82) or adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18). No particular influence on the heterogeneity of any variable was observed. The risk of publication bias was low. According to the GRADE approach, the evidence levels of primary outcome (treatment effects) and secondary outcomes (acceptability and safety) were rated as 'medium'.

conclusionThe use of rTMS combined with medication treatment may have a significant positive anti-anxiety effect on patients with GAD. However, we should interpret the results cautiously due to the relatively high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis. Future high-quality clinical trials are needed to confirm our results.

Indexed as

anxietygeneralized anxiety disordermeta-analysisrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationrtms

Identifiers

PMID31673675
PMCPMC6802976
OpenAlexW2976746088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.