Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37072625›Full record

SynthesisBrain structure & function2023

A systematic review of the neurobiological effects of theta-burst stimulation (TBS) as measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Melissa Kirkovski, Peter H Donaldson, Michael Do, Bridgette E Speranza, Natalia Albein-Urios, Lindsay M Oberman, Peter G Enticott

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Brain structure & function, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Melissa KirkovskiInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. melissa.kirkovski@vu.edu.au.
Peter H DonaldsonCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Michael DoCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Bridgette E SperanzaCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Natalia Albein-UriosCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Lindsay M ObermanNational Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peter G EnticottCognitive Neuroscience Unit, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Deakin University · AUNational Institute of Mental Health · USVictoria University · AU

Funding

Non-invasive Neuromodulation Unit (NNU)ZIAMH002955 · NIMH · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH · PI ZARATE, CARLOS · 2016 to 2025
$40.3M
NIH HHS Intramural Research program (ZIAMH00295)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is associated with the modulation of a range of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes, but specific neurobiological effects remain somewhat unclear. This systematic literature review investigated resting-state and task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) outcomes post-TBS in healthy human adults. Fifty studies that applied either continuous-or intermittent-(c/i) TBS, and adopted a pretest-posttest or sham-controlled design, were included. For resting-state outcomes following stimulation applied to motor, temporal, parietal, occipital, or cerebellar regions, functional connectivity generally decreased in response to cTBS and increased in response to iTBS, though there were some exceptions to this pattern of response. These findings are mostly consistent with the assumed long-term depression (LTD)/long-term potentiation (LTP)-like plasticity effects of cTBS and iTBS, respectively. Task-related outcomes following TBS were more variable. TBS applied to the prefrontal cortex, irrespective of task or state, also produced more variable responses, with no consistent patterns emerging. Individual participant and methodological factors are likely to contribute to the variability in responses to TBS. Future studies assessing the effects of TBS via fMRI must account for factors known to affect the TBS outcomes, both at the level of individual participants and of research methodology.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMotor CortexAdultHumansLong-Term PotentiationNeuronal PlasticityTheta RhythmTranscranial Magnetic StimulationFunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)Inter-individual variabilityNon-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS)Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)Theta burst stimulation (TBS)Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)

Identifiers

PMID37072625
PMCPMC10113132
OpenAlexW4366351975

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.