ArticleThe Psychiatric quarterly2024
Bilateral rTMS Shows No Advantage in Depression nor in Comorbid Depression and Anxiety: A Naturalistic Study.
Article in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circuit-targeted modulation of anxiety symptoms in individuals with major depression: A randomized head-to-head TMS trial.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Trial
- Electromagnetic Field Stimulation Effects on Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Their Role in Aging and Neurodegeneration.Journal of biomedical science and engineering · 2025Article
- Advances in transcranial magnetic stimulation for psychological symptom management in Parkinson's disease.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- Neurostimulation devices to treat Alzheimer's disease.Exploration of neuroscience · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to determine if adding low-frequency right-sided rTMS treatment to the standard high-frequency left-sided treatment (LUL), referred to as sequential bilateral treatment (SBT), confers additional benefit for depression or anxiety outcomes. A retrospective chart review from January 2015 through December 2018 yielded 275 patients, all of whom were treated with a figure-8 coil for a major depressive episode. Their protocol was either LUL or SBL. Outcome measures were the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). There was no significant difference in GAD-7 change scores between patients who had LUL or SBL (4.2 vs 4.8). This was also true when the sample was restricted to only patients who started with high GAD-7 scores. There was likewise no significant difference in PHQ-9 change scores between patients who had LUL or SBL (6.8 vs 5.1). Patients switching from LUL to SBL mid-course had poorer overall outcomes as compared to patients who stayed with the same protocol throughout treatment. This large naturalistic study shows no advantage for SBL treatment any group or condition examined. The results of this study have clinical applicability and sound a cautionary note regarding the use of combination rTMS protocols.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38127248What 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.