ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2024
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Working Memory Deficits in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Working memory (WM) deficits are a significant component of neurocognitive impairment in individuals with schizophrenia (SCZ). Two previous meta-analyses, conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), examined the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in addressing WM deficits in individuals diagnosed with SCZ. However, the conclusions drawn from these analyses were inconsistent. Additionally, the commonly used random effects (RE) models might underestimate statistical errors, attributing a significant portion of perceived heterogeneity between studies to variations in study quality. Therefore, this review utilized both RE and quality effects (QE) models to assess relevant RCTs comparing TMS with sham intervention in terms of clinical outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus databases, resulting in the inclusion of 13 studies for data synthesis. Overall, regardless of whether the RE or QE model was used, eligible RCTs suggested that the TMS and sham groups exhibited comparable therapeutic effects after treatment. The current state of research regarding the use of rTMS as a treatment for WM deficits in patients with SCZ remains in its preliminary phase. Furthermore, concerning the mechanism of action, the activation of brain regions focused on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and alterations in gamma oscillations may hold significant relevance in the therapeutic application of rTMS for addressing WM impairments. Finally, we believe that the application of closed-loop neuromodulation may contribute to the optimization of rTMS for WM impairment in patients with SCZ.
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.