Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37501135›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2023

Efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) after two antidepressant treatment failures: meta-analysis of randomized sham-controlled trials.

Róbert György Vida, Eszter Sághy, Richárd Bella, Sándor Kovács, Dalma Erdősi, Judit Józwiak-Hagymásy, Antal Zemplényi, Tamás Tényi, Péter Osváth, Viktor Voros

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Róbert György VidaDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Eszter SághyCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Richárd BellaCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Sándor KovácsCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dalma ErdősiCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Judit Józwiak-HagymásyCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Antal ZemplényiCenter for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Tamás TényiDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Péter OsváthDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Viktor VorosDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. voros.viktor@pte.hu.
University of Pecs · HU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of unilateral High-Frequency Left-sided (HFL) repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) for individuals with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); however, results are contradictory due to heterogeneity of the included studies.

methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) of English language articles published since 2000 was performed in March 2022 on PubMed and Scopus databases. Empirical evidence on the relative efficacy of rTMS treatment compared with standard pharmacotherapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression (TRD) were extracted. Random effects models were used to assess the effects of rTMS on response and remission rates.

results19 randomized double-blinded sham-controlled studies were included for quantitative analysis for response (n = 854 patients) and 9 studies for remission (n = 551 patients). The risk ratio (RR) for response and remission are 2.25 and 2.78, respectively for patients after two treatment failures using rTMS as add-on treatment compared to standard pharmacotherapy. Cochrane's Q test showed no significant heterogeneity. No publication bias was detected.

conclusionsrTMS is significantly more effective than sham rTMS in TRD in response and remission outcomes and may be beneficial as an adjunctive treatment in patients with MDD after two treatment failures. This finding is consistent with previous meta-analyses; however, the effect size was smaller than in the formerly published literature.

Indexed as

Depressive Disorder, Treatment-ResistantMajor Depressive DisorderAntidepressive AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment FailureTreatment OutcomeAntidepressive AgentsEfficacyMajor depressive disorder (MDD)Meta-analysisMethodologyRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)Treatment-resistant depression (TRD)

Identifiers

PMID37501135
PMCPMC10375664
OpenAlexW4385304467

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.