ArticleBMJ open2023
Comparing the efficacies of transcranial magnetic stimulation treatments using different targeting methods in major depressive disorder: protocol for a network meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Rare Case of Psychogenic Nonepileptic Seizure Following Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.Cureus · 2025Article
- Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor regimens for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer in randomized, double-blind, phase III controlled trials: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (lDLPFC) has been widely used as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) in the past two decades. Different methods for localising the lDLPFC target include the '5 cm' method, the F3 method and the neuro-navigational method. However, whether TMS efficacies differ between the three targeting methods remains unclear. We present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacies of TMS treatments using these three targeting methods in MDD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Relevant studies reported in English or Chinese and published up to May 2023 will be identified from searches of the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database. We will include all randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of an active TMS treatment using any one of the three targeting methods compared with sham TMS treatment or comparing efficacies between active TMS treatments using different targeting methods. Interventions must include a minimum of 10 sessions of high-frequency TMS over the lDLPFC. The primary outcome is the reduction score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. The dropout rate is a secondary outcome representing the TMS treatment's acceptability. Pairwise meta-analyses and a random-effects NMA will be conducted using Stata. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank the different targeting methods in terms of efficacy and acceptability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and NMA does not require ethics approval. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023410273.
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.