Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40154967›Full record

Trial reportBMJ mental health2025

Crosswalk between HRSD and MADRS outcomes for rTMS in patients with depression.

Xiao Chen, Daniel M Blumberger, Chao-Gan Yan, Jonathan Downar, Fidel Vila-Rodriguez, Zafiris J Daskalakis, Tyler S Kaster

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.

NCT02729792 nacompletednot on this map

Canadian rTMS Treatment and Biomarker Network in Depression Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthRan2016 to 2018Enrolled212ConditionsDepressionArmsrTMS
NCT02998580 nacompletednot on this map

Conventional Bilateral rTMS vs. Bilateral Theta Burst Stimulation for Late-Life Depression

TypeinterventionalSponsorCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthRan2016 to 2020Enrolled163ConditionsMajor DepressionArmsLFR followed by HFL, cTBS followed by iTBS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Xiao ChenState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5561-6572
Daniel M BlumbergerTemerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Campbell Family Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8422-5818
Chao-Gan YanState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3413-5977
Jonathan DownarTemerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Campbell Family Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fidel Vila-RodriguezNon-Invasive Neurostimulation Therapies Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Zafiris J DaskalakisInstitute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tyler S KasterTemerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Campbell Family Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada tyler.kaster@camh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-5299-4794

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are the two most common clinician-rated scales to quantify depression symptom change in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) trials. However, it is unclear how the values of one scale translate to the other. Being able to translate scores between these scales could allow for aggregating rTMS clinical trial data.

methodsClinical data from two randomised rTMS clinical trials (FOURD and CARTBIND, total N=380) were pooled. We used five crosswalk models: (1) a pharmacotherapy equipercentile model, (2) an rTMS equipercentile model, (3) a linear regression model, (4) a random forest (RF) regression model and (5) a support vector regression (SVR) model. Model performance was benchmarked using the root mean square error (RMSE).

resultsThe linear regression model demonstrated the best performance (RMSE: 2.66-4.82), though the SVR model's performance was slightly worse but comparable (RMSE: 2.69-5.32). The RF regression model generally performed worst (RMSE: 2.70-5.20). The rTMS equipercentile model's performance was intermediate (RMSE: 2.69-5.32) in the primary analysis but achieved superior performance and demonstrated less bias in the additional analysis.

interpretationMADRS and HRSD scores from rTMS trials can be accurately converted between each other. The optimal model was the newly developed equipercentile model, though the results of the SVR model were promising. Nevertheless, independent external replication is required to demonstrate the external validity of these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: FOURD: NCT02998580; CARTBIND: NCT02729792.

Indexed as

DepressionMajor Depressive DisorderOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesTranscranial Magnetic StimulationAdultFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDepressionDepression & mood disordersMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID40154967
PMCPMC11956309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.