Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566131›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2024

Inappropriate study inclusion in meta-analysis of sham-controlled rTMS for treatment-resistant depression.

Kevin P Kennedy

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisLetter
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Rethinking the Treatment-Resistant Depression.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
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

1 author.

Kevin P KennedyDepartment of Psychiatry, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dr. Vida and colleagues have published an important meta-analysis on a critical topic in psychiatry: the efficacy of double-blind, sham-controlled rTMS in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) [1]. The primary reported finding was a significant effect of rTMS on remission and response (RR 2.25 and 2.78 respectively) compared to sham rTMS. A close evaluation of the studies included in this meta-analysis raises concerns about the accuracy of these findings.

Indexed as

DepressionDepressive Disorder, Treatment-ResistantDouble-Blind MethodHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTranscranial Magnetic StimulationTreatment OutcomerTMSSham-controlTreatment-resistant depression

Identifiers

PMID38566131
PMCPMC10985900

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.