SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2024
The efficacy and safety of continuous theta burst stimulation for auditory hallucinations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. 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.
- Comments on study titled: "Exploring adjunctive continuous theta burst stimulation for treatmentresistant auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: Insights from a case series".Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Exploring adjunctive continuous theta burst stimulation for treatment-resistant auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia: Insights from a case series.Indian journal of psychiatry · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Auditory hallucinations are the most frequently occurring psychotic symptom in schizophrenia. Continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) has been used as an adjuvant treatment for auditory hallucinations. This meta-analysis focused on randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy of adjuvant cTBS on auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of four international databases from their inception to January 14, 2024, to identify relevant RCTs that assessed the effects of adjuvant cTBS on auditory hallucinations. The key words included "auditory hallucinations", "continuous theta burst stimulation" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation". Inclusion criteria included patients with auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB1) were used to evaluate the risk of bias and the Review Manager Software Version 5.4 was employed to pool the data. Results: A total of 4 RCTs involving 151 patients with auditory hallucinations were included in the analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias of these studies presented "low risk" in all items. Preliminary analysis showed no significant advantage of adjuvant cTBS over sham stimulation in reducing hallucinations [4 RCTs, n = 151; SMD: -0.45 (95%CI: -1.01, 0.12), Conclusions: Although preliminary analysis did not revealed a significant advantage of adjuvant cTBS over sham stimulation, subgroup analysis showed that specific parameters of cTBS appear to be effective in the treatment of auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. Further large-scale studies are needed to determine the standard protocol of cTBS for treating auditory hallucinations. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024534045.
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.