ArticleBMC psychiatry2020
Knowledge and attitudes about transcranial magnetic stimulation among psychiatrists in China.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views about neuromodulation interventions for depression by stakeholder group, treatment modality, and depression severity.Comprehensive psychiatry · 2023Trial
- Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals toward the use of noninvasive neuromodulation technology in the treatment of cognitive disorders.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Chinese neurologists toward transcranial direct current stimulation.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitude, and Motivation Regarding Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Among Rehabilitation Specialists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Interventional Psychiatry in India: Bridging Treatment Gaps and Expanding Horizons in Mental Health.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2024Article
- Knowledge and attitude toward transcranial magnetic stimulation among rehabilitation specialists in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Treating maternal depression: understanding barriers and facilitators to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in Canada-a protocol.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Clinicians' views on neuromodulation as a treatment for eating disorders: A qualitative study.Neuropsychiatrie : Klinik, Diagnostik, Therapie und Rehabilitation : Organ der Gesellschaft Osterreichischer Nervenarzte und Psychiater · 2021Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive form of brain stimulation. It has been used in many mental health institutions to treat mental disorders worldwide. However, comprehensive knowledge about rTMS is not yet widespread among psychiatrists. The present study assessed psychiatrists' knowledge and attitudes about rTMS in China and investigated related factors.
methodsA quantitative observational cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey. The sample consisted of 522 psychiatrists. Multinomial logistic regression and multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore factors that contributed to psychiatrists' knowledge about rTMS. We also ascertained psychiatrists' attitudes about rTMS and provide recommendations for the more widespread use of rTMS.
resultsThe majority of respondents (86.4%) reported having access to rTMS at their institution. A total of 379 psychiatrists (72.6%) knew that rTMS was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for treatment-resistant depression. Univariate logistic regression indicated that psychiatrists who were older, had a senior professional title, worked more years, had an onsite clinical rTMS program in their hospital, and received formal training in theory and application (all p < 0.05) were more likely to know that rTMS was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of depression. The percentages of respondents who knew most or all indications, the mechanism of action, parameter settings, adverse reactions were 51.9, 40.2, 27.4, and 41.4%. Linear regression showed that formal training in rTMS theory and practice were associated with higher knowledge scores (all p < 0.05). Most of the subjects had negative attitudes about using rTMS to treat mental disorders. When asked about their attitudes about continuing rTMS education, nearly all of the respondents indicated that they were willing to pursue continuing training in rTMS in the future.
conclusionsMany psychiatrists had an insufficient level of knowledge about rTMS and negative attitudes about rTMS. Psychiatrists who had formal rTMS training experience had higher levels of rTMS knowledge. rTMS training and relevant policy making should be strengthened.
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.