Trial reportBrain stimulation
A randomized trial comparing beam F3 and 5.5 cm targeting in rTMS treatment of depression demonstrates similar effectiveness.
Trial report in Brain stimulation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03378570 (The Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Prefrontal Target Location on Outcomes for Major Depressive Disorder), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
The Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Prefrontal Target Location on Outcomes for Major Depressive Disorder
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- The medial prefrontal cortex as a proposed regulatory structure in the relationship between anxiety and perceived social support: a review.BMC psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Circuit-targeted modulation of anxiety symptoms in individuals with major depression: A randomized head-to-head TMS trial.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Trial
- Beam-F3 error analysis and validation of Neurally-F3 equations using realistic head models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transcranial magnetic stimulation to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex modulates single-neuron activity in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Test-retest reliability and symptom association of personalized depression TMS targets: A comparative study of refined seed-based (RSA) and hierarchical clustering (HCA) approaches.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2026Article
- Longitudinal formative assessment reforms in manual therapy education: impacts on psychological wellbeing and course satisfaction.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Advances in the Clinical Application of Neurostimulation in Major Depression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Clinical development and guiding theory of transcranial magnetic stimulation: a literature review.Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Differential Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Mood and Pain Symptoms in People With Chronic Pain and Major Depressive Disorders-A Review.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Review
- Treating Depression With Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Clinician's Guide.The American journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Comparison of effectiveness of common targeting heuristics in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment of depression.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Consensus review and considerations on TMS to treat depression: A comprehensive update endorsed by the National Network of Depression Centers, the Clinical TMS Society, and the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Review
- The network-based underpinnings of persisting symptoms after concussion: a multimodal neuroimaging meta-analysis.Nature. Mental health · 2025Article
- Research advances in neuronavigated target localization for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in depression: from standardization to individualized neuromodulation.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2025Review
- Mechanisms of Action of TMS in the Treatment of Depression.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2024Review
- Unilateral vs. bilateral DLPFC rTMS: comparative effects on depression, visual-spatial memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility in major depressive disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Article
- Trajectory Modeling and Response Prediction in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Depression.Personalized medicine in psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Beam F3 and 5.5 cm methods are the two most common targeting strategies for localizing the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) treatment site in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) protocols. This prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative effectiveness trial assesses the clinical outcomes for these two methods in a naturalistic sample of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) undergoing clinical rTMS treatment.
methods105 adult patients with MDD (mean age = 43.2; range = 18-73; 66% female) were randomized to receive rTMS to the Beam F3 (n = 58) or 5.5 cm (n = 47) target. Between group differences from pre-to post-treatment were evaluated with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) [primary outcome measure], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), and clinician-administered Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS). Primary treatment endpoint was completion of daily treatment series.
resultsPer-protocol analyses showed no statistically significant differences on any measure between the 5.5 cm and F3 groups (all p ≥ 0.50), including percent improvement (PHQ-9: 39% vs. 39%; GAD-7: 34% vs. 27%; MADRS: 40% vs. 38%), response rate (PHQ-9: 37% vs. 43%; GAD-7: 27% vs. 30%; MADRS: 43% vs. 43%), and remission rate (PHQ-9: 22% vs. 21%; MADRS: 20% vs. 19%). Post hoc analysis of anxiety symptom change while controlling for depression severity suggested more favorable anxiolytic effects with 5.5 cm targeting (p = 0.03).
conclusionsSimilar antidepressant effects were observed with DLFPC rTMS using either the Beam F3 or 5.5 cm targeting method, supporting clinical equipoise in MDD patients with head circumference ≤ 60 cm. Comparison to MRI-based targeting and differential effects on anxiety symptoms require further investigation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03378570.
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.