SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Optimal parameter determination of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating treatment-resistant depression: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis 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 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjunctive bilateral vs. unilateral or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depressive disorder or bipolar depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on immediate and long-term cognitive functions in Alzheimer's dementia and mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists professional practice guidelines for the administration of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2024Guideline
- Randomised controlled trial comparing different intersession intervals of intermittent theta burst delivered to the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex.BMJ mental health · 2024Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies have shown the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). However, the choice of different parameters has been a challenging issue. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies until June 20, 2022. The treatment efficacy was evaluated by the relative risk (RR) using the pairwise test for response and remission rates. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the primary outcome differences and to assess the reliability of the results. Results: Thirty-seven trials comprising 2120 participants with TRD were included. The more efficacious interventions compared to sham controls included high-frequency left followed by low-frequency right sup-threshold (HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS, RR = 5.29, 95% CI: 1.24-22.50), high-frequency left sup-threshold (HFL-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.74-5.05), low-frequency right sup-threshold (LFR-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.50-4.90), low-frequency right followed by high-frequency left sup-threshold (LFR-HFL-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.62-4.53), and high-frequency left sub-threshold (HFL-sub-rTMS, RR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.18-3.10) rTMS. The estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS (84.4%) might be the most efficacious among all rTMS strategies. No treatments showed a lower acceptability than the sham control. Limitations: Subgroup analysis was not conducted to compare the efficacy of rTMS treatment between bipolar and unipolar depression, and small-study effects possibly introduced bias. Conclusion: Treatment with HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS, HFL-sup-rTMS, LFR-sup-rTMS, LFR-HFL-sup-rTMS, or HFL-sub-rTMS is more efficacious than the sham control. HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS and HFL-sup-rTMS may be the two best among the most efficacious rTMS treatments. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42022334481].
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.