Observational studyPloS one2025
The Scania Accelerated Intermittent Theta-burst Implementation Study (SATIS)-Lessons from an accelerated treatment protocol.
Observational study in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy of Personalized Connectivity-Guided Accelerated Brain Stimulation in a Naturalistic Treatment-Resistant Depression Population.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe Scania Accelerated Intermittent Theta-burst Implementation Study (SATIS) aimed to investigate the tolerability, preliminary effectiveness, and practical feasibility of an accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (aTBS) protocol in treating depression.
methodsWe used an open-label observational design, recruiting 20 patients (aged 19-84 years) from two public brain stimulation centers in Sweden. During the five-day treatment period and at a follow-up visit after 30 days we closely monitored adverse events and collected self-rated side effect data. Objective (MADRS, CGI) and subjective (MADRS-S) measures of symptoms and functioning (EQ-5D) were also assessed. Feasibility was evaluated using direct patient ratings combined with a qualitative approach evaluating staff experience.
resultsAll patients reported adverse events at some point, the most common being headache (18/20 patients), but they were generally transient. MADRS scores decreased from 28.4 (min = 17, max = 38. SD = 6.9) at baseline to 20.0 (min = 1, max = 42. SD = 11.6) after the last day of treatment. 25% (n = 5) met the response criteria, with a mean time to response of 2.2 days (min = 1, max = 3. SD = 1.1). The practical arrangements surrounding this new treatment proved challenging for the organization, but patients reported few practical problems.
conclusionSATIS provided further insights into the potential benefits and challenges associated with aTBS protocols. Effectiveness and drop-out rates were comparable to national data of conventional iTBS, but with a markedly faster time to response. More resources were required than anticipated, increasing the clinical workload.
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.