Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35619619›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2022

The Problem and Potential of TMS' Infinite Parameter Space: A Targeted Review and Road Map Forward.

Kevin A Caulfield, Joshua C Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Accelerated sequential bilateral theta-burst stimulation in major depression: an open trial.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Differential neural responses to rhythmic and patterned TMS protocols: Insights from EEG spectral analysis.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin A CaulfieldDepartment of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
Joshua C BrownDepartments of Psychiatry and Neurology, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI, United States.
Brown University · USMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

Personalizing tDCS Dose in Healthy Adults and Chronic Ischemic StrokeF31NS126019 · NINDS · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI CAULFIELD, KEVIN A. · 2022 to 2023
$81k
NINDS NIH HHS F31 NS126019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive, effective, and FDA-approved brain stimulation method. However, rTMS parameter selection remains largely unexplored, with great potential for optimization. In this review, we highlight key studies underlying next generation rTMS therapies, particularly focusing on: (1) rTMS Parameters, (2) rTMS Target Engagement, (3) rTMS Interactions with Endogenous Brain Activity, and (4) Heritable Predisposition to Brain Stimulation Treatments. Methods: We performed a targeted review of pre-clinical and clinical rTMS studies. Results: Current evidence suggests that rTMS pattern, intensity, frequency, train duration, intertrain interval, intersession interval, pulse and session number, pulse width, and pulse shape can alter motor excitability, long term potentiation (LTP)-like facilitation, and clinical antidepressant response. Additionally, an emerging theme is how endogenous brain state impacts rTMS response. Researchers have used resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rsfMRI) analyses to identify personalized rTMS targets. Electroencephalography (EEG) may measure endogenous alpha rhythms that preferentially respond to personalized stimulation frequencies, or in closed-loop EEG, may be synchronized with endogenous oscillations and even phase to optimize response. Lastly, neuroimaging and genotyping have identified individual predispositions that may underlie rTMS efficacy. Conclusions: We envision next generation rTMS will be delivered using optimized stimulation parameters to rsfMRI-determined targets at intensities determined by energy delivered to the cortex, and frequency personalized and synchronized to endogenous alpha-rhythms. Further research is needed to define the dose-response curve of each parameter on plasticity and clinical response at the group level, to determine how these parameters interact, and to ultimately personalize these parameters.

Indexed as

dose-response curveinverted U-shaped curveparameter optimizationrepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulationresting state fMRIsynchronized rTMS-EEGsynchronized TMStheta burst stimulation

Identifiers

PMID35619619
PMCPMC9127062
OpenAlexW4229453490

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.