ArticleBMJ mental health2025
Comparison of effectiveness of common targeting heuristics in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment of depression.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2025. 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.
- Unveiling the Multifaceted Networks of the Left DLPFC for Precision TMS Targeting.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Pre-treatment structural brain biomarkers predict response to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in subjective tinnitus.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is an effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive intervention for depression. However, the optimal strategy for localising the DLPFC treatment site on the patient's scalp is heavily disputed. Routine strategies were previously incrementally refined and compared in terms of anatomical accuracy, but little is known about their impact on clinical outcomes.
objectiveTo assess the impact of three common scalp-based heuristics for magnetic coil positioning on the treatment outcome of rTMS.
methodsThis retrospective analysis of real-world clinical data involved patients suffering from a major depressive episode (n=94) who received a 4-week course of excitatory rTMS to the left DLPFC. The treatment target (ie, coil position) was either determined at an absolute distance anterior to the motor hotspot ('6 cm rule') or defined in reference to the EEG electrode position F3 using a traditional ('Beam F3') or optimised ('Beam F3 Adjusted') approach.
findingsThere was no statistically significant difference between the '6 cm rule' and the 'Beam F3' method nor between the 'Beam F3' and the 'Beam F3 Adjusted' method in head-to-head comparisons of averaged per cent change of scores on depression rating scales (all p>0.605) and response rate (all p>0.475).
conclusionsEnhancing targeting precision via scalp-based heuristics does not affect treatment outcomes. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no need for clinicians to switch from their familiar to an 'advanced' approach among these common targeting heuristics.
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.