Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39831586›Full record

ArticleAustralasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists2025

TMS in major depression: A retrospective naturalistic study including two subjective tools.

Saxby Pridmore, Gregory M Peterson, Marzena Rybak, Karen Byrne, Tae Dillon, Yvonne Turnier-Shea, Ahmed Naguy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, 2025. 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. Article
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

7 authors.

Saxby PridmoreDiscipline of Psychiatry, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9170-1798
Gregory M PetersonSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6764-3882
Marzena RybakHobart TMS, Bellerive, TAS, Australia.
Karen ByrneHobart TMS, Bellerive, TAS, Australia.
Tae DillonHobart TMS, Bellerive, TAS, Australia.
Yvonne Turnier-SheaHobart TMS, Bellerive, TAS, Australia.
Ahmed NaguyAl-Manara CAP Centre, KCMH, Shuwaikh, Kuwait.ORCID 0000-0002-6465-456X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ObjectiveTo report the outcomes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) treatment of patients with acute major depressive disorder (MDD), with particular attention to the performance of the individual assessment tools, including two new subjective mood scales.MethodsPatients with MDD were treated with up to 35 daily TMS sessions. Objective quantification of mood utilised the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6) and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale (CGI-S). Subjective quantification was made using the Subjective Depression Scale (SDS6) and a new Daily Emotion Score (DES) - a single question which is asked daily.ResultsNinety consecutive patients (58 females; 64.4%) with a mean age of 46.9 years were included. Using HAM-D6 criteria, 51 patients (56.7%) achieved remission. Scores obtained using the different tools correlated well at the same time point, especially at the conclusion of TMS therapy. The only statistically significant independent predictors of remission were the percentage improvement at session 10 (relative to baseline) in the SDS6 (

Indexed as

Major Depressive DisorderOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesmajor depressive disordermood assessment toolspredictionremissiontranscranial magnetic stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39831586
PMCPMC12138150

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.